Steven G. Gey

Copyright (c) 1999 Texas Law Review Association;
Steven G. Gey

In February 1999, a federal jury in Oregon awarded Planned Parenthood and several other plaintiffs a civil judgment of $107 million against individuals and groups that published two anti-abortion posters and provided information for an anti-abortion website known as The Nuremberg Files. [FN1] The posters and website included the usual range of anti-abortion expression: immoderate statements opposing the procedure; pictures of bloody fetuses allegedly produced by abortions; references to the satanic impulses of abortion providers; and grandiose statements about the need to prepare for eventual Nuremberg-style trials of all those who provide abortion services or otherwise participate in what the defendants consider the equivalent of mass murder. [FN2] By now much of this is standard fare in *542 the acrimonious debate over abortion rights. [FN3] The posters and the Nuremberg Files website went beyond the incendiary rhetoric that characterizes typical anti- abortion militancy, however, by listing the names of individuals who provide support for abortion services--including doctors, clinic workers, police officials, politicians, and judges. [FN4] Additional personal information was included for some of the individuals, such as their home addresses and telephone numbers. [FN5] Most notoriously, the operators of the website drew a line through the names of abortion providers who were murdered because of their professional activities. [FN6] The Oregon jury concluded that the combination of ominous rhetoric and specific identification of individuals constituted a threat to the named individuals, in violation of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). [FN7]

The judgment in the Nuremberg Files litigation caused little consternation among civil libertarians and others who usually man the First Amendment barricades. Although the Oregon chapter of the ACLU filed an amicus brief in the case, which sought to moderate the plaintiffs' efforts to characterize broadly the constitutionally unprotected category of speech known as "true threats," neither the local nor the national chapter of the ACLU argued that the website in question should be protected by the First *543 Amendment. Indeed, the executive director of the national ACLU, Ira Glasser, even chided Robyn Blumner--a columnist for the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times and a former ACLU official--for suggesting in the Wall Street Journal that the ACLU had abandoned its traditional pro-speech principles by failing to defend the speakers in the Nuremberg Files case. Glasser wrote, "If someone like Ms. Blumner had tried to argue in the 1960s that Klan threats against particular civil-rights workers were protected speech, even as some of those workers were being targeted for murder and murdered, no sane person would have taken her seriously. None should now." [FN8] This position seems to be shared by many civil libertarians. [FN9] Even Nat Hentoff, who is both a prominent free speech proponent and an opponent of abortion, wrote a column in the Washington Post supporting the judge's decision. [FN10]

At the risk of being cast into the "no sane person" bin with Ms. Blumner, I shall explain in this Article why civil libertarians such as Messrs. Glasser and Hentoff are badly mistaken in their treatment of the Nuremberg Files case. The civil libertarians' cavalier and nearly universal dismissal of the free speech claims on behalf of the Nuremberg Files website is objectionable in at least three major ways. First, the critics of the Nuremberg Files website treat far too lightly the importance of precisely assessing the context in determining the existence of what the First Amendment literature calls "true threats." [FN11] There are important differences between a generalized website, containing hundreds of names and broadcast for the entire world to view, and (to use Mr. Glasser's example) secretive threats communicated during the civil rights conflicts of the 1960s to a select group of civil rights workers by local members of the *544 Ku Klux Klan. Second, the critics of the Nuremberg Files website concede far too readily the propriety of the jury's role in determining whether an incendiary communication by a loud and unpopular speaker is sufficiently threatening to justify a multimillion dollar judgment that effectively bankrupts the distasteful speaker and silences the bothersome speech. [FN12] Finally, those who would deny free speech protection for the Nuremberg Files website have failed to articulate a standard for true threats that offers anything but the most generalized guidance for courts, which have sometimes been willing to abandon any scrutiny of sanctions against even vaguely "threatening" speech. [FN13]

The remainder of this Article elaborates on these conclusions. Part I reviews the link between threats and incitement: the category of First Amendment doctrine that has been used by the Supreme Court to define most broadly the protections offered to political and social dissenters. Part II describes the facts of the Nuremberg Files case in light of the Supreme Court's political speech precedents. Part III reviews the three different versions of First Amendment doctrine regarding threats that were considered by the district court in the Nuremberg Files case, none of which incorporates the Supreme Court's much more skeptical attitude toward such cases. Finally, Part IV suggests rules for dealing with both private and public speech containing threatening language. These rules reflect the very different considerations that arise in private and public threats cases, which must be taken into account to reconcile the strong protections of dissenting speech found in other areas of First Amendment jurisprudence with the need for legitimate regulation of true threats.

I. Incitement and Threats in the Supreme Court

Any second-year law student who has completed a basic constitutional law course can trace the trajectory of the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence regarding political speech and incitement. From the perspective of free speech proponents, historical trends in the development of Supreme Court doctrine involving the protection of political speech have been almost uniformly positive. In the early years of the twentieth century, the Court deferred almost totally to government assessments of the dangers inherent in antisocial or politically radical speech. [FN14] By the 1970s, the *545 Court was rigorously enforcing a constitutional standard that makes it virtually impossible for the government to win a case against a speaker making political pronouncements in the absence of some evidence that the speaker has participated directly in the planning or implementation of some specific criminal activity. [FN15]

The general tendencies of the Court's political speech jurisprudence are very clear, but the Court's failure to announce a formal extension of the political speech standard to cases involving threats has led to a great deal of confusion in the lower courts: the lack of clear guidance from the Supreme Court on this subject has fostered the proliferation of eclectic and contradictory standards. [FN16] As the discussion in Part III will illustrate, the lower courts cannot even agree on which factors should be the focal point of First Amendment cases dealing with threats, much less on how much protection the Constitution offers such speech.

Most of this confusion is unjustified. Although the Supreme Court has not explicitly defined the standard for assessing whether speech containing threatening language is protected by the First Amendment, the Court's incitement decisions and the references to threats that occasionally appear in those decisions actually leave far less room to maneuver than lower courts have typically assumed. Two of the Court's modern political speech decisions actually deal with threats, although the decisions were cast more broadly as cases involving incitement and advocacy.

The Supreme Court came closest to articulating a constitutional standard for dealing with threats in Watts v. United States. [FN17] Watts *546 involved a Vietnam War-era prosecution under a fifty-year-old federal statute prohibiting threats against the president. [FN18] The case involved a political demonstration against the war, in which a protester took the stage and announced, "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." [FN19] The Court overturned Watts's conviction for violating the statute. [FN20] Although the Court was less than thorough in setting forth the constitutional standard for threatening speech, it did establish several principles that continue to define discussions of the topic. The first and most important aspect of Watts is that the Court overturned the conviction, thereby establishing that the First Amendment limits how the government can define threats: "What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech." [FN21] This seemingly obvious conclusion deserves mention only because in recent cases lower courts seem to think that if a judge or jury deems particular speech a threat, the Constitution no longer constrains punishment of that speech. [FN22] Yet, the clear message of Watts is that application of the label itself is limited by the First Amendment.

The second important aspect of Watts is the Court's recognition that threatening speech is often merely political advocacy under a different guise. [FN23] This means that if speech does not fall within the narrow confines of what the Court called a true threat, then that speech receives the same high protection provided to ordinary political advocacy. [FN24] It is important to note how the Court phrased this point in Watts: the Court held that Watts's speech was protected because it was mere "political hyperbole." [FN25] The Court then defined political hyperbole by linking it to constitutionally protected political debate that is "often vituperative, *547 abusive, and inexact." [FN26] The Court's explicit linkage of threatening language and the "principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" [FN27] is critical to understanding the strictly confined boundaries of the category of unprotected true threats. The Watts Court seemed to indicate that the threatening nature of one's words, by itself, is not enough to justify casting it outside the protective scope of the First Amendment if that speech does not have the effect of signaling some immediately impending danger to the target of the speech.

The constitutional significance of limiting the category of true threats to situations involving immediate danger was emphasized again only two months after Watts, when the Court issued its opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio. [FN28] Thirty years later, Brandenburg still defines the modern First Amendment test for the regulation of political advocacy. [FN29] Like Watts, Brandenburg protected political speech that contained hateful, vicious, and even violent imagery, and yet the Court's opinion strictly limited the contexts in which the government could punish or regulate such speech in the future. Under Brandenburg, political speech can be regulated only if the speech incites illegal action, is intended by the speaker to instigate that action, and is uttered in a context in which the illegal action is likely to occur immediately. [FN30] Even the most inflammatory speech is constitutionally protected if any one of these three elements is absent, and each of the three elements is interpreted very narrowly.

The highly protective nature of the Brandenburg standard was driven home four years later in Hess v. Indiana. [FN31] There, the Court overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of an antiwar protester, who had shouted *548 "we'll take the fucking street later (or again)" [FN32] to a crowd that had just been cleared off a street by police, in the vicinity of recent unruly and potentially violent protests. [FN33] By protecting a speaker in circumstances under which most people would be inclined to defer to the police's judgment on the risk of incitement, the Court severely narrowed the range of circumstances in which inflammatory advocacy could be regulated. As a result, speech alone will almost never meet the Brandenburg standard. Justice Douglas's statement in his Brandenburg concurrence that speech must be "brigaded with action" [FN34] to be punishable by the government therefore seems to be a succinct summary of the current rule. Thus, if a future manifestation of Mr. Hess does not augment his speech by picking up a rock or physically leading the angry crowd back into the street, then his speech will be protected.

As noted at the beginning of this section, this rendition of modern political speech protection will be familiar to many casual students of constitutional law. But for present purposes the important point is that the Watts Court treated threatening speech as if it had the same expansive protection as political advocacy, and the Brandenburg and Hess Courts extended constitutional protection to all political advocacy that falls short of active participation in a particular criminal act. The implication of these cases is that if speech, when viewed objectively, does not take the form of an explicit threat, and if the speaker does not both intend that the threat be acted upon and take action to carry out the threat immediately, then the threat is constitutionally protected speech.

One can easily imagine the objections to an attempt to subsume threats within the nearly absolute protections of Brandenburg and its progeny. After all, Watts involved speech that was far removed from individualized threats to a particular person. No one hearing Mr. Watts's statements would seriously believe that he intended the threatening statements to be taken literally, and no one at the White House was likely to sound an alarm upon hearing what Mr. Watts said at a public rally on the Washington Monument grounds. Watts did verbally attack the President, but the President is a prominent public official and therefore obligated to weather many offensive verbal attacks by political opponents. [FN35] Arguably, verbal threats against private persons are different not only because private persons are not paid to take abuse, but also because they do not have the Secret Service ensuring that even true threats are not carried out. It is *549 certainly plausible to explain away Watts by treating the case as little more than a judicial effort to protect obviously inconsequential speech about public officials--who are used to hearing much worse. And if one concedes that Watts is inapposite to the facts of the Nuremberg Files website, the defendants in the Nuremberg Files litigation have very little constitutional law to rely on.

There are two problems with discounting the applicability of Watts to the Nuremberg Files. First, limiting Watts to statements directed toward public officials is inconsistent with the deeply speech-protective spirit of the Court's incitement decisions. The decisions discussed above indicate that the Court intended to set a standard for protecting all speech that advocates or praises illegal action, as long as the speech does not directly and immediately cause an illegal result. [FN36] Second, any attempt to minimize the implications of Watts and the Court's incitement decisions on cases involving threats cannot account for the Supreme Court's more recent and even more vigorous protection of threats in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware. [FN37] Claiborne Hardware is the case that ultimately undermines any attempt to punish the speech of the Nuremberg Files defendants or other speakers who employ the language of threats to make a political point.

The Court's unanimous 1982 decision in Claiborne Hardware expands Watts in two ways: First, it indicates that the doctrine emerging from Watts, Brandenburg, and Hess protects potentially serious threats as well as obviously nonthreatening political hyperbole; [FN38] and second, it establishes that the protection applies not only to threats against public officials, but also to threats made against private persons in a context where the threats are not likely to be carried out immediately. [FN39] Claiborne Hardware confirms that the determining factors in ascertaining whether the Constitution protects threatening speech are the same as the factors identified in the incitement cases: the speaker's specific intent, the objective indications that the speaker will undertake a specific illegal action, and the likelihood that the illegal action will occur immediately. [FN40] It is difficult to read the holding of Claiborne Hardware any other way, and yet most of the lower court discussions of the constitutional rules regarding threats either ignore the case or treat it as relevant only to ancillary issues. [FN41]

*550 In Claiborne Hardware several merchants in a small Mississippi town sued the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and affiliated organizations for tortious interference with business relations after the civil rights groups organized an economic boycott of the businesses to protest the discriminatory treatment of blacks who shopped in the town. [FN42] The state trial court awarded the white merchants over one million dollars in damages, mostly for lost business earnings and lost goodwill. [FN43] The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the tortious interference judgment, concluding that the civil rights groups had used "illegal force, violence, and threats" to enforce the boycott, and that such incitement to violence is outside the protection of the First Amendment. [FN44]

The use of threats was a major focus of the United States Supreme Court in its consideration of the case. The Court asked the merchants to submit a supplemental brief to clarify the facts on which liability was based in state court, and three of the four factual assertions made in the supplemental brief turned on the use of threats and "enforcers" to enforce the boycott. [FN45] The persistent and very serious threats in Claiborne Hardware take the case far beyond the overheated, and essentially meaningless, political rhetoric of Watts. In Claiborne Hardware the threats were specific, they were made against a finite and easily identifiable group of people in a small town where the targets of the threats could reasonably believe that the threats would be carried out, and the threats were uttered in a context where violence of a sort advocated by the speakers actually occurred during the weeks that followed the threatening speeches. [FN46]

The explicit nature of the threats in Claiborne Hardware is significant because taken in context, these threats created more of a sense of imminent danger than the threats at issue in the Nuremberg Files litigation. [FN47] The threats at issue in Claiborne Hardware were mostly spoken at boycott rallies by Charles Evers, [FN48] who was then the field secretary of the NAACP. [FN49] At one rally "Evers told his audience that they would be watched and that blacks who traded with white merchants would be answerable to him." [FN50] During the same rally, Evers told the crowd that *551 "any 'uncle toms' who broke the boycott would 'have their necks broken' by their own people." [FN51] The chancellor who first heard the case found that at a subsequent rally, "Evers stated that boycott violators would be 'disciplined' by their own people and warned that the Sheriff could not sleep with boycott violators at night." [FN52] At a third rally, Evers told the crowd that "If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're gonna break your damn neck." [FN53]

These speeches were given in a context where acts of violence were routinely employed to enforce the boycott. [FN54] "Store watchers," also known as "Black Hats" or "Deacons," stood outside boycotted stores and collected the names of those who traded with the merchants in violation of the boycott. [FN55] The names of violators were read at NAACP meetings and published in a boycott newsletter. [FN56] On several occasions, acts of violence were committed against boycott violators: shots were fired into homes, a brick was thrown though a windshield, tires were slashed, and people were beaten for not observing the boycott. [FN57]

None of this distinguishes the Mississippi dispute from many other heated political, social, or labor disputes. The facts in Claiborne Hardware are significant only because of the Supreme Court's remarkable conclusion that Evers's speeches were protected by the First Amendment. [FN58] The speech was protected despite the fact that Mr. Evers used explicitly threatening language, despite the fact that this language was used in the charged atmosphere of a small town where several acts of violence had already occurred, and despite the fact that those identified and threatened by Mr. Evers in his speeches had good cause to take the threats seriously. As the Court summed up Evers's speeches, "[T]hey might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence whether or not improper discipline was specifically intended." [FN59] The Court nevertheless held unanimously that the speeches were constitutionally protected, and it went out of its way to state this conclusion in an opinion that directly linked threatening speech to other forms of raucous political discourse [FN60]--which receives the highest *552 constitutional protection. [FN61] According to the Court, Evers's "emotionally charged rhetoric" [FN62] did not fall outside the protection of Brandenburg because "mere 'advocacy' of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the First Amendment." [FN63] The fact that advocacy takes the form of threatening language does not matter: "When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech. To rule otherwise would ignore the 'profound national commitment' that 'debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." ' [FN64]

In light of the central role threats played in the speech challenged in Claiborne Hardware, it is mystifying that Claiborne Hardware has had virtually no effect on the development of the law of threats in the lower courts. [FN65] It is equally strange that the trial court decisions in the Nuremberg Files case barely even mention the decision, much less try to *553 distinguish it. [FN66] Instead of discussing the application of Brandenburg and Claiborne Hardware, the district court in the Nuremberg Files litigation became mired in the numerous, often conflicting rules governing threats that are now competing for dominance in various federal circuits. [FN67]

Part II of this Article summarizes the facts of the Nuremberg Files litigation and Part III reviews the strongest standards that were presented to the district court by the parties and the amici. As these discussions indicate, none of the standards now used by the lower federal courts in similar cases come close to providing the level of constitutional protection demanded by the Supreme Court's decisions in Watts, Brandenburg, and Claiborne Hardware. Unfortunately for the Nuremberg Files defendants, the standard used by the district court in the Nuremberg Files litigation is the least protective (and therefore the least defensible) of all.

II. Threats, Bombast, and the Nuremberg Files

There is very little useful information on the Nuremberg Files posters and website. The website includes abundant references to God and Satan, repeatedly refers to doctors as "butchers," and is decorated with dripping blood. [FN68] It also appropriates Holocaust imagery, which is used as the organizing theme of the site. [FN69] Specifically, the website is organized around the theme of collecting "dossiers" on individuals who participate in abortions, "in anticipation that one day we may be able to hold them on trial for crimes against humanity." [FN70]

*554 The two posters at issue in the case contained similar statements. The first, labeled "The Deadly Dozen," included the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of twelve abortion providers. [FN71] It labeled them "GUILTY of Crimes Against Humanity" and offered a five thousand dollar reward for "information leading to arrest, conviction, and revocation of license to practice medicine." [FN72] The second poster at issue in the case was one of a series of six posters, each of which identified a single doctor or abortion clinic, which the posters labeled "GUILTY OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY." [FN73] One of the doctors identified in this series of posters was Robert Crist, a plaintiff in the Nuremberg Files litigation. [FN74] The poster identifying Dr. Crist offered a five hundred dollar reward "to any ACLA organization that successfully persuades Crist to turn from his child killing through activities within ACLA guidelines." [FN75]

The Nuremberg Files case turns largely on the fact that the defendants' website and posters identified specific individuals by name, sometimes accompanied by their addresses and telephone numbers. [FN76] From the defendants' perspective, these individuals were named in order to facilitate the collection of information for future Nuremberg-style trials, and to further the plan of convincing the individuals "to turn from [their] child-killing." [FN77] The question is whether the naming of "suspects" in the context of emotional and even violent imagery removes the website and posters from the realm of constitutionally protected political bluster and places them in the realm of unprotected true threats.

This question is much more difficult to answer than the plaintiffs, the district court, and the various supporters of the district court opinion (cited in the introduction to this Article) seem to believe. The only difficulty the district court seemed to have with the case was in sorting out the various *555 lower court standards for threatening speech. [FN78] Once it settled on a standard, the court easily concluded that the threats were direct enough to avoid First Amendment protection of the defendants' speech. [FN79] The question of legal standards will be addressed in Part III, but for present purposes the larger problem is whether the facts in the Nuremberg Files litigation could support a verdict against the speakers under even the most lenient threats standard, because the speech in this case can be construed as threats under only the loosest and most generalized definition of the term. [FN80] This conclusion follows from a brief consideration of the four salient aspects of the speech on which the Nuremberg Files court based its determination: the inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the lists of names, the lists of individual abortion providers and advocates, the photographs of some of the individuals named, and the intent of the speakers.

A. The Inflammatory Rhetoric

Much of the rhetoric on the Nuremberg Files website is extreme and even violent. Abortion providers are labeled "baby butchers," who deliver "Satan" "his daily diet of slaughtered babies." [FN81] Sections of the main site are divided with animated lines of dripping blood. [FN82] The main site has several links to other portions of the site, including one page that contains eight graphic pictures allegedly of fetuses aborted at various abortion clinics and hospitals in the United States and Canada. [FN83] The text accompanying these pictures is as unsubtle as the text on the website's main page. After noting one clinic's insistence that fetuses were disposed of in *556 conformity with Texas law, the site observes with mock solemnity, "This may be true; it is not clear that tossing babies' bodies out to be eaten by dogs, rats, and mice was illegal." [FN84] The posters are somewhat more muted than the website. They repeat the charges of "crimes against humanity," but contain no bloody-fetus pictures. [FN85]

Most of this is gut-wrenching material. From a First Amendment perspective, however, the point is that the graphic and excessive nature of the speech contributes nothing to the characterization of the speech as a true threat. The Supreme Court has extended First Amendment protection to many different examples of speech that are directly analogous to the speech in the Nuremberg Files litigation. Graphic and violent imagery is nothing new in First Amendment cases. The speaker in Claiborne Hardware threatened physical violence against nonparticipants in an economic boycott; [FN86] the speaker in Hess used obscenities to urge a crowd to violently confront police; [FN87] the speaker in Brandenburg specifically advocated violence against racial minorities; [FN88] and the speaker in Watts vowed to shoot the President. [FN89] Yet, in each of these cases, the First Amendment claims were upheld on the theory summarized in Claiborne Hardware that "[s]trong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases." [FN90] The message of all these cases is that political rhetoric and imagery is constitutionally protected no matter how extreme unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." [FN91]

One does not have to endorse the moral accuracy of Justice Harlan's remark that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric" [FN92] to recognize that for constitutional purposes, the sensationalist language and imagery contained in the Nuremberg Files website is no less deserving of protection than the newspaper cartoon depicting a policeman raping the Statue of Liberty and captioned "M---- -f---- Acquitted." [FN93] In the absence of proof *557 that the authors of the website were involved more directly in imminent lawless action, it should at least be clear that the tone and opinions of the materials at issue in the Nuremberg Files litigation cannot be used to support the verdict against the defendants. The case therefore turns primarily on the publication of individual names and other personal information about the plaintiffs. Pictures of dead fetuses and dripping-blood graphics draw attention to the threatening speech, but they add nothing whatsoever to the claim that the publication of personal information constitutes a true threat.

B. The Lists of Names

The district judge in the Nuremberg Files litigation implicitly recognized that the graphic nature of the website and posters were largely irrelevant to the threats claim, and therefore his published opinions in the case focused mostly on the fact that the defendants had published lists of individual names of abortion services providers and supporters. [FN94] But without evidence that the individuals disseminating this information were directly involved in physical attacks on any of the named plaintiffs, the court had little except the defendants' ideological fervor on which to base a finding that the website names constituted a true threat. Therefore, despite the court's efforts to evade the issue, the case still revolves around the defendants' extremist political advocacy, the content of which falls far short of the direct and immediate incitement of violence required by Brandenburg and its progeny. [FN95]

The court's focus on the defendants' publication of specific names rather than their incendiary rhetoric is a result of the court's effort to treat the Nuremberg Files litigation as something other than a Brandenburg case. When considered in the abstract, the identification of specific targets for antagonistic speech is a much more reasonable basis for a determination that speech constitutes a true threat than the speaker's use of more generalized emotionally excessive rhetoric or sensationalist photographs. The fact that the speaker has targeted specific persons by name indicates that the speaker may be willing to go beyond abstract advocacy and carry *558 out some violent or illegal action against the named individuals. Yet, for constitutional purposes, the belief that a speaker "may be willing" to do something is not a sufficient basis to sanction the speaker's speech. [FN96] The speaker's direct involvement with a specific illegal action is the significant issue, not the simple fact that the speaker has criticized someone by name, or identified someone as an ideological opponent, or even expressed a deep aversion to or hatred of a particular political antagonist. [FN97] In cases where speech is directed at someone in particular, the First Amendment linchpin is whether the content of the speech reflects the speaker's specific intent and ability to engage immediately in an illegal act. [FN98] Thus, the expression of a desire that a particular person suffer harm or even death is not enough to support legal action against a speaker if there is no evidence that the speaker is taking action to carry out that desire. [FN99] The fact that the list of names on the Nuremberg Files website included the crossed-out names of murdered doctors--which is noted in the district judge's findings of fact [FN100] and which figured prominently in many press accounts of the case [FN101]--certainly adds to the offensiveness of the website. However, it does not diminish the site's constitutional protection.

*559 The government's obligation to link a speaker to a particular and immediate illegal action before punishing that speaker's expression is the most basic requirement imposed by the Supreme Court decisions discussed in Part I of this Article. As Watts and Claiborne Hardware make clear, this principle is altered neither by the form of words used by the speaker (that is, the fact that the words form a threat), nor by the fact that the speaker identifies a particular person or small group of persons as the objects of his wrath. [FN102] Those two cases indicate that even speech that may be described in the nonlegal vernacular as a threat against particular persons may be considered "advocacy" for purposes of enforcing the protections of the First Amendment. Thus, if a speaker's identification of names is so generalized that immediate action against the named individuals is unlikely, or if the speaker does not unequivocally indicate that he or she intends to do something specific to the named target in the immediate future, the speech cannot be viewed as a true threat, but rather must be construed as protected (albeit unsavory) political speech.

Against this legal background, the Nuremberg Files website and posters are not nearly specific enough to justify the district court's conclusion that they constitute a true threat. The list of names on the website is so long, and the individuals named are so widely dispersed geographically, that no one person on the list could reasonably believe that the defendants would themselves immediately undertake (or immediately incite) criminal action against any one person named on the list. The Nuremberg Files website lists 524 individual names in long lists separated into six categories. [FN103] In addition to doctors and clinic owners, the lists include members of Congress, police officials, the President and Vice President, and all the present Supreme Court Justices who support abortion plus (inexplicably) former Justice and Roe v. Wade [FN104] dissenter Byron White. [FN105] It is not, to put it mildly, a carefully compiled or focused list.

The two posters issued by the Nuremberg Files defendants present a somewhat different problem, but still do not rise to the level of a true threat. At first glance, the posters may seem more threatening than the website. Unlike the website, which included a random and diffuse list of people associated with abortion rights, the "Deadly Dozen" poster included only twelve names and the "Crist Poster" included only the name of Dr. *560 Crist. [FN106] However, the posters were not associated with any explicit incitement to illegal action against the named persons. [FN107] The "Deadly Dozen" poster proposed only that readers collect information about the named individuals' alleged participation in "crimes against humanity" in exchange for a five thousand dollar reward. [FN108] The Crist poster also offered a reward for information that the doctor had participated in "crimes against humanity," and further suggested that people opposing his participation in abortion services "write, leaflet, or picket his neighborhood to expose his blood guilt." [FN109] These exhortations advocated no violent or illegal actions against those named on the posters, and the authors expressed no intention to carry out any such actions themselves. [FN110]

The problem facing the district court in the Nuremberg Files litigation was that everything printed on the posters was clearly protected speech. It is fanciful to believe that Nuremberg-style trials will ever be held to prosecute "crimes against humanity," but there is nothing illegal about someone advocating such trials or assembling "evidence" in the event that such trials should take place. The Supreme Court has held on several occasions that abortion protesters may picket outside abortion clinics and outside the homes of abortion providers. [FN111] Furthermore, outside the *561 abortion context, but in a case involving speech much like the posters in the Nuremberg Files litigation, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the distribution of leaflets targeting a particular individual because of his political actions. For example, in Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, [FN112] the Court overturned an injunction prohibiting protesters who objected to a real estate agent's "blockbusting" activities [FN113] from distributing leaflets both attacking the agent by name and urging its readers "to call [the agent] at his home phone number and urge him to sign [a no- solicitation agreement]." [FN114] To further personalize the direct attack on the agent, the leaflets were distributed at the homes of his neighbors, in a nearby shopping center, and to parishioners outside his church. [FN115] Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that the leaflets were protected by the First Amendment, and treated the case as a relatively simple constitutional matter. [FN116]

One possible response to the Keefe analogy is that the distribution of posters naming particular individuals involved in the provision of abortion services contributes to an atmosphere in which third parties will be encouraged to undertake illegal and even violent actions against the persons identified in the posters. This is undoubtedly true, but it is doubtful that the speech in the Nuremberg Files case could be considered more likely to encourage a violent response than the speech in Claiborne Hardware, which was speech directing an especially suggestible local audience to enforce the economic boycott against its own community by any means necessary. [FN117] Additionally, the Keefe Court itself addressed the argument that coercive speech should be protected less rigorously than abstract speech that is less directly oriented toward accomplishing some specific objective:

In sustaining the injunction . . . the Appellate Court was apparently of the view that petitioners' purpose in distributing their literature was not to inform the public, but to 'force' respondent to sign a no-solicitation agreement. The claim that the expressions were intended to exercise a coercive impact on respondent does not remove them from the reach of the First Amendment. Petitioners plainly intended to influence respondent's conduct by their activities; *562 this is not fundamentally different from the function of a newspaper. Petitioners were engaged openly and vigorously in making the public aware of respondent's real estate practices. Those practices were offensive to them, as the views and practices of petitioners are no doubt offensive to others. But so long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standards of acceptability. [FN118]

These statements apply equally well to the defendants in the Nuremberg Files litigation. The defendants' speech on the subject is at worst deeply offensive, and both Keefe and Claiborne Hardware indicate that hostile references to particular individuals do nothing to change the nature of constitutional protection for offensive speech.

C. The Photographs and Other Personal Information

As the preceding section indicates, the naming of names alone is not sufficient to support the district court's conclusion that the Nuremberg Files website and the related posters at issue in the case constitute true threats. The remaining question with regard to the content of the Nuremberg Files is whether the dissemination of additional data about some of the individuals on the lists makes the posters and website more threatening than if the materials simply listed the names without further information.

The additional information disseminated on the website and posters pertained to only a few of the individuals listed as targets of the Nuremberg Files, and the nature of the information was not particularly sensitive or secret. The "Deadly Dozen" poster included the addresses and telephone numbers of all twelve people named in the poster. [FN119] The Crist poster included a photograph of Crist and his home and work addresses. [FN120] The website contained similar information about a few of the names listed on the site. Two of the names listed on the website were linked to pages offering the individuals' home addresses, dates of birth, brief physical descriptions, photographs, license plate numbers, and (in one case) a telephone number and a social security number. [FN121] A third name was linked to another web page containing a long diatribe against the named doctor, but with no personal information about the doctor other than a link to his website. [FN122] Another general link on the main page of the Nuremberg Files website refers to a separate web page containing a list of Maryland doctors, along with the home and office addresses and telephone *563 numbers of one of the doctors listed. [FN123] Also, a general link on the main web page refers to a separate web page containing photographs of four doctors, the office address of one, the residence addresses of two, and the names of the churches where two of the doctors are members. [FN124]

The doctors whose personal information was listed on the Nuremberg Files website and posters were understandably distressed that they had been identified in this way, especially in light of the history of violence associated with abortion protestors. But as a constitutional matter, the question is not whether the information is disturbing, or even whether the information could be helpful to a third party intending to do harm to those named. The constitutional question is whether the publication of this information justified the district court's finding that the website and posters constituted unprotected speech. [FN125]

None of the threats cases decided by the Supreme Court have dealt precisely with the issue of whether the dissemination of factual information can support a true threat finding. The Supreme Court has dealt with cases involving the publication of even more sensitive personal information in other contexts, however, and these cases suggest that the Constitution does not permit the imposition of legal sanctions for the publication of true information--especially when that information is easily obtainable from public sources--in the absence of some evidence that the publishers themselves used (or immediately intended to use) the information in illegal ways.

The cases in which the Supreme Court has dealt with the publication of sensitive personal information do not involve threats, but they do involve situations where the information is likely to cause harm and trauma to the person whose private information has been disseminated publicly. On three separate occasions, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not permit the imposition of civil damages against someone who publishes true information that was obtained lawfully. Each of these cases involved highly sensitive and potentially harmful information: two regarded the dissemination of the names of rape victims, [FN126] and the other addressed the publication of the identity of a juvenile offender. [FN127] Although in these cases the Court did not hold definitively that the *564 publication of truthful information is always protected in every context, it did hold that "punishment [for publication of truthful information] may lawfully be imposed, if at all, only when narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest order." [FN128]

There are two problems in applying this principle to the publication of addresses, telephone numbers, and other information included in the Nuremberg Files litigation. First, the state interest underlying the civil action in the Nuremberg Files litigation is the prevention of threats against individuals who provide abortion services. As discussed in Part I, however, this interest in preventing threats is limited by the First Amendment to situations involving true threats. [FN129] Thus, logically, the narrow-tailoring requirement for punishment of those publishing legally obtained true information seems likewise limited to publication that is directly linked to the publisher's involvement in some immediate illegal activity: that such publication results in a harm caused by someone acting independently of the publisher cannot be the basis of a civil damages award against the publisher.

A contrary rule would permit absurd results--such as the prosecution of a local telephone company for publishing the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of local abortion providers. There is an obvious difference between the telephone company and the Nuremberg Files defendants, because the Nuremberg Files posters and website couple the factual information about individuals with radical anti-abortion advocacy. But if the nonfactual advocacy on the Nuremberg Files website and posters is constitutionally protected speech--as any court must hold if Brandenburg is not ignored entirely [FN130]--then joining together one element of protected speech (advocacy) with another (names and addresses) cannot logically produce a final product that is itself a constitutionally unprotected true threat.

One cannot avoid the constitutional problems of penalizing the Nuremberg Files by bringing the suit under an alternate theory, such as invasion of privacy: with the exception of the publication of one doctor's social security number, all of the information published on the website and posters is generally obtainable by legal means. Unless the state is willing to impose the same civil damages liability against the publishers of *565 telephone books, city directories, and companies operating Internet search engines--who publish much of the same information--it may not impose damages for the compilation of this same publicly available information by someone who compiles the information for ideological purposes. To impose damages only on the ideological publisher would in effect amount to viewpoint regulation of speech, which the Court has repeatedly characterized as virtually a per se constitutional violation. [FN131] The fact that this information is surrounded by vitriolic political attacks does nothing to change the relatively commonplace nature of the information. Therefore, this information adds nothing to the plaintiffs' allegations that the Nuremberg Files website and posters constitute true threats.

D. The Defendants' Intent

Plaintiffs suing a speaker for threats made in the context of political speech must prove all three elements of the Brandenburg analysis to collect civil damages. [FN132] As the previous discussion indicates, the facts of the Nuremberg Files litigation do not satisfy either the objective incitement nor contextual imminent danger elements of Brandenburg. In order for speech to be unprotected under Brandenburg, all three elements must be met; if the first two are not met, the question of intent is effectively moot. But in any event, evidence of the defendants' intent falls far short of the requirements set forth in Brandenburg and subsequent cases, such as Hess, that elaborate on the intent element of the Brandenburg analysis.

Brandenburg and Claiborne Hardware require that anyone seeking civil sanctions against speech prove that the speaker intended to immediately cause the illegal action advocated by the speaker. [FN133] This requirement is derived from the succinct statement in Brandenburg that advocacy of violence may not be prohibited "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." [FN134] The Court elaborated on this requirement in subsequent opinions and specifically linked the intent requirement to the element of immediacy that figures prominently in every *566 aspect of the Brandenburg analysis. In Hess, for example, the Court held that sanctions against speech were permissible only if there is evidence that the speaker's words "were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder." [FN135] Again, the word "imminent" is critical. An intent to do anything other than produce imminent disorder is insufficient to satisfy the Brandenburg test. [FN136] In particular, it is inappropriate to *567 sanction a speaker based only on proof that the speaker could reasonably expect that his speech would produce in listeners a generalized discontent with the status quo. It is also inappropriate to base sanctions on nothing more than proof that the speaker could reasonably expect that he would create generalized discontent that would encourage some of his listeners to respond, perhaps illegally, in the indefinite future. This was precisely the scenario in Hess, Claiborne Hardware, and, for that matter, Brandenburg itself--and in all these cases the Supreme Court upheld the free speech rights of the speakers.

The facts in the Nuremberg Files litigation regarding intent fall into three categories: (1) the defendants' statements generally advocating the use of violence to prevent abortions; (2) the defendants' statements praising anti- abortion activists who commit violent acts against abortion providers; and (3) evidence that the defendants associated with individuals and groups that advocated committing violent acts. [FN137] None of these facts are sufficient to demonstrate the requisite intent to commit or assist immediate acts of violence, as required by Brandenburg.

The facts in all three categories of evidence were largely uncontested by the defendants. With regard to the first two categories of evidence, the court found that the defendants were aware that some abortion providers had been murdered, and that defendants were also aware that publication of posters similar to those produced by the defendants predated the murders. [FN138] For instance, the court found that some of the individual defendants had praised Paul Hill, who killed a doctor and a volunteer escort at a clinic in Pensacola, Florida, and had even signed a petition calling for his acquittal. [FN139] Along the same lines, one of the association defendants featured Hill on the cover of its magazine, [FN140] and another individual defendant publicly stated that "Looking objectively, I can't say what he did was wrong." [FN141] After the shooting of a doctor in Canada, another defendant called the act a "superb tactic" and celebrated the fact that "the shooting was done in such a way that the perpetrator got away." [FN142] One defendant called the bombing of a Birmingham, Alabama *568 clinic "a righteous act," [FN143] and another wrote a book justifying violence against abortion providers as "justifiable homicide." [FN144] These are merely representative samples of the advocacy of violence expressed at various times by all the defendants; none of the defendants denied these views. One of the defendants summed up the general attitude of the entire group: "[I]f someone was to condemn any violence against abortion, they probably wouldn't have felt comfortable working with us." [FN145]

The third category of evidence relates to associations by the individual defendants with other individuals or groups that advocate violence. Two such associations were also defendants in the case: the American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) and the Advocates for Life Ministries (ALM). [FN146] The groups are closely related. The ALM was instrumental in forming ACLA in 1994, as a result of a split in the anti-abortion movement over the use of force to achieve its objectives. [FN147] Several of the individual defendants founded ACLA because they advocated the use of violence. [FN148] A major focus of the district judge's findings of fact regarding each individual defendant is his participation in or sympathy with the ACLA, especially with regard to group activities endorsing violence against abortion providers. [FN149]

Although the above evidence does denote the individual and group defendants' endorsement and advocacy of violence, this evidence does not indicate that the defendants had demonstrated the specific kind of violent intentions required under the Brandenburg analysis. The deficiency lies in the fact that although the Nuremberg Files defendants clearly indicated that they favor violence and think highly of those who commit violence against abortion providers, the defendants never indicated their intention to commit or assist in the commission of immediate acts of violence against any of the individuals named in the various Nuremberg Files documents. Sympathy for illegal actions is not enough without proof of some intention immediately to commit illegal actions. The absence of any evidence that the defendants intended their speech to contribute to some specific and *569 immediate action should therefore doom the plaintiffs' case under Brandenburg. [FN150]

This should not be a controversial conclusion. Many of the cases that are now viewed as the cornerstones of modern free speech jurisprudence also involved the same sort of approval of lawless behavior as that of the Nuremberg Files defendants. [FN151] One of the earliest applications of the clear and present danger test [FN152] involved the conviction of Eugene V. Debs for violating the federal Espionage Act. [FN153] Debs was convicted and sentenced to twenty years in prison for giving a speech in which he praised the actions of imprisoned draft evaders. [FN154] The Supreme Court's decision upholding Debs's conviction was effectively overruled almost fifty years later in Bond v. Floyd, [FN155] in which the Supreme Court ordered the Georgia legislature to permit Julian Bond to join the state senate, to which Bond had just been elected. [FN156] The state legislature had voted not to administer Bond the oath of office because Bond had praised the actions of individuals who had illegally burned their draft cards. [FN157] The Supreme Court overturned the legislature's actions, holding that Bond's statements could not be interpreted as an incitement to immediate illegal action and were therefore protected speech. [FN158] Cases decided since Brandenburg-- including one in which the Court reinstated a public employee who praised the actions of President Reagan's would-be assassin [FN159]--reaffirm that *570 statements simply endorsing or praising the illegal actions of others are not sufficient to render the statements themselves subject to legal regulation.

There is a similarly extensive history regarding the application of a very narrow intent requirement to free association claims. In the free association area, as in the free speech cases, the First Amendment standard evolved from one imposing almost no limits on government prosecution of radical political association, to one that provides nearly absolute protection of all association that does not amount to a criminal conspiracy. [FN160] Early Supreme Court decisions allowed juries to infer illegal intent from nothing more than the fact that a defendant had associated with individuals who advocated the commission of an illegal action--even if the defendant publicly renounced violent or illegal actions. [FN161] During the early 1960s, the Court moved away from this very lenient standard and imposed a much more rigorous analysis that requires the government to produce evidence that an individual charged with seditious association be more than a passive member of the illegal group. [FN162] In upholding the membership provisions of the Smith Act, [FN163] the Court noted that the statute covered only active Communist Party members "having also a guilty knowledge and intent," which "therefore prevents a conviction on what otherwise might be regarded as merely an expression of sympathy with the alleged criminal enterprise, unaccompanied by any significant action in its support or any commitment to undertake any action." [FN164] During the Brandenburg era, this standard has been made even more protective, to the point that the First Amendment now imposes on the government "the burden of establishing a knowing affiliation with an organization possessing unlawful aims and goals, and a specific intent to further those illegal aims." [FN165] The First *571 Amendment absolutely prohibits the government from basing any legal sanction on "guilt by association alone." [FN166]

The facts in the Nuremberg Files case are arguably indistinguishable from the facts in the free speech and free association cases that the Supreme Court has analyzed under the modern Brandenburg test. The only way the Nuremberg Files court could uphold the jury's verdict, therefore, is to find some alternative standard under which to hold the defendants liable. This led the district judge to turn to the confused world of threats in the lower courts.

III. The Strange Search for a First Amendment Standard Governing "Threats"

The preceding sections proceed on the assumption that Brandenburg and its progeny define the constitutional standard for judging true threats. If that assumption is correct, then resolving the Nuremberg Files dispute should be simple. The Supreme Court case law set forth above, relating to incitement, articulates a very protective standard for the publication of information containing threatening language: this analysis simply incorporates the true threats doctrine into the standard Brandenburg three-part consideration of language, context, and intent. [FN167] Under the analysis set forth above in Part II, the facts in the Nuremberg Files litigation fail to satisfy even one of the three Brandenburg elements.

The fact that the district court in the Nuremberg Files litigation arrived at the opposite conclusion [FN168] illustrates how far the lower courts adjudicating claims involving alleged threats have deviated from the seemingly obvious implications of the Supreme Court's approach to threatening speech. The district court in the Nuremberg Files litigation is not alone; despite the Supreme Court's linkage of threats and political speech analysis since Watts, [FN169] lower courts in virtually every circuit tend to ignore the Court's political speech jurisprudence and instead anguish over devising their own constitutional standard for judging threatening communications. [FN170]

*572 Part of the Nuremberg Files court's confusion stems from the often conflicting state of the law in the various circuits. This unsettled law led the court to engage in a meandering discussion of the various possible elements of a constitutional standard, concluding with an analysis that was as unprotective as any of the options the court considered, and which effectively abandons Brandenburg as a constitutional guidepost. [FN171] A brief consideration of the options presented to the district court--along with the district court's own attempt to interpret the Ninth Circuit standard--will provide some idea of the range of different options available to litigants attacking threatening speech in the various circuits. These disparate standards are united by only one thing: none of them would offer much protection to Charles Evers and the other defendants in Claiborne Hardware, and therefore all of these standards violate the First Amendment principles set forth by the Supreme Court.

A. The Second Circuit's Kelner Standard and the Disappearing Brandenburg Intent and Imminent Danger Requirements

The defendants in the Nuremberg Files litigation relied primarily on a twenty-year-old Second Circuit opinion that is probably the most speech- protective of the various lower court First Amendment standards for speech involving threatening language: United States v. Kelner. [FN172] Unfortunately, this most protective lower court standard is still less protective than the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in its incitement cases and grants juries far more discretion in sanctioning speech than is possible under Brandenburg. [FN173]

In Kelner, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of a man who had been convicted under a federal statute prohibiting interstate communications containing threats to kidnap or injure any person. [FN174] The defendant had threatened to kill Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat as a political gesture intended to demonstrate that "we (as Jews) would defend ourselves and protect ourselves." [FN175] The Nuremberg Files defendants urged the district court to adopt the Kelner standard, which seemed to prohibit prosecution of all but the most explicit threats. [FN176] The Kelner court had held that the *573 relevant statute permitted the government to prosecute threatening speech only "[s]o long as the threat on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution." [FN177] From a free speech perspective, this statement by the Second Circuit appears very protective, and if enforced consistently it would seem to provide at least as much protection as the Supreme Court required by formulating incitement and imminent danger components in its Brandenburg analysis. Unfortunately, a closer analysis of Kelner and subsequent Second Circuit interpretations of that case reveals that the Second Circuit standard is far less protective than the Brandenburg standard. In short, Kelner and subsequent Second Circuit cases eliminated altogether the application of two of the three components of Brandenburg and severely restricted the application of the third.

With regard to the intent requirement of Brandenburg, Kelner itself did the damage. The Kelner opinion assumed that the prosecution of a threat is not governed by the same rules as incitement and other political advocacy. [FN178] Thus, the Second Circuit held that the prosecution of a threat does not require proof that the speaker had any specific intent to actually carry out the threat. [FN179] The Second Circuit recently reaffirmed that "the government need not prove that a defendant intended his communication to be threatening" in an opinion issued only months before the jury's decision in the Nuremberg Files litigation. [FN180]

The Second Circuit's assumption that proof of specific intent is not required in a true threat case misreads Watts and is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's strong protection of threatening language in both Brandenburg and Claiborne Hardware. The same issue was raised in the Watts appeal in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Like the Second Circuit, the D.C. Circuit panel also interpreted the willfulness element of a threats statute as requiring only the general intent to say the words charged as a threat, and held specifically that "[t]here is no requirement that the person uttering the threats have an intention to carry them out." [FN181] Although it reversed the circuit court on other grounds, the Supreme Court noted its "grave doubts" about the circuit court's interpretation of the statute and referred favorably to Judge Skelley *574 Wright's dissent from the panel's decision on the issue of intent. [FN182] The rationale for a specific intent requirement in threats cases is the same as the rationale for the requirement in other political speech cases. As one congressional proponent of the presidential threats statute noted in defending the inclusion of a specific intent requirement, "If you make it a mere technical offense, you do not give [a speaker charged under the statute] much of a chance when he comes to answer before a court and jury." [FN183] In effect, the elimination of an intent requirement converts all speech cases involving threatening or overtly inciteful language into strict liability offenses; as soon as the speaker utters a threatening or inciteful phrase, the jury is allowed to infer that the speaker intended the illegal result even if--as in Watts itself--it is clear from all the circumstances that the "threat" is used merely as a rhetorical device. [FN184]

Although the Second Circuit in Kelner refused to apply the intent element of the Brandenburg standard, the court did rely on the second Brandenburg factor: the requirement that speech must directly incite illegal action. This requirement prevents juries that are hostile to a speaker's political views from punishing forceful advocacy that does not overtly urge audience members to undertake immediate illegal action. [FN185] The underlying notion is that juries adjudicating claims against defendants who express unpopular views will be inclined to view radical rhetoric as dangerously inflammatory even when there is no real threat of disorder. This element of the Brandenburg standard is drawn from the incitement analysis proposed during the early part of the century by Judge Learned Hand, [FN186] and the standard reflects Judge Hand's observation that "it is *575 precisely at those times when alone the freedom of speech becomes important as an institution, that the protection of a jury on such an issue is illusory." [FN187]

Unfortunately, Second Circuit decisions since Kelner have significantly softened the requirement that incitement be direct and explicit to be deemed a threat. In 1994, the Second Circuit held in United States v. Malik [FN188] that contextual evidence could be introduced to justify a judge's or jury's conclusion that otherwise ambiguous language constitutes a true threat. [FN189] The court asserted that "[O]nce sufficient extrinsic evidence, capable of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that an ordinary and reasonable recipient familiar with the context of the letter would interpret it as a threat, has been adduced the trial court should submit the case to the jury." [FN190] Thus, the Second Circuit reduced Brandenburg's objective language requirement to a question of factual inference in which the (possibly hostile) jury's reactions can be based on the contextual interpretation of ambiguous language, rather than the speaker's actual words. [FN191] This portion of the Malik decision is cited by the district court *576 in the Nuremberg Files litigation, [FN192] and the district court ultimately attributed to Kelner the proposition that "whether a threat is a true threat must be determined in light of the context (or circumstances) in which it is made." [FN193]

The third and final aspect of the Brandenburg analysis--the imminent danger requirement--has not been analyzed explicitly in the Second Circuit threats decisions, but the Kelner court's conclusion is clear: the government does not have to prove that the defendant in a threats case has "a present ability to carry out his threat." [FN194] This is another way of saying that the government does not have to demonstrate immediate danger in order to punish threatening speech, which directly contradicts the third Brandenburg requirement. In Part IV, I will explain the complexities of applying the imminent danger analysis to one-to-one threats. [FN195] However, in the context of a generalized speech free of overt and direct threats, the Kelner standard robs Brandenburg of its force: speech can be prosecuted as a true threat even if the speech does not express a direct threat, the speaker does not intend the speech to be a threat, and the speaker has no ability to carry out a threat. This produces a standard that is little different from that which provided hostile juries nearly unfettered discretion to punish political radicals in the Red Scare period immediately following World War I. [FN196] And the really bad news is that the Second Circuit standard is the protective option among those presented to the Nuremberg Files court.

*577 B. The Reluctant Defenders: The ACLU and the Malleable Intent Requirement

The national office of the ACLU did not participate in the Nuremberg Files case, but the Oregon branch of the organization filed an amicus brief-- carefully noting that it was arguing about abstract principles of free speech, rather than in support of either party. [FN197] But the ACLU had a problem. On one hand the organization recognized that a lenient standard for assessing true threats could chill significant amounts of legitimate political speech. [FN198] On the other hand, the organization concluded that most of the speech at issue in the Nuremberg Files case could reasonably be characterized as falling outside the broad protections of the First Amendment. [FN199] Reconciling these contradictory tendencies required a subtle articulation of the standards for assessing political speech that is attacked as containing true threats. Unfortunately, the subtleties got the best of the ACLU, and the organization finally offered a standard that dissolves into a laundry list of vague factors that, if adopted, would produce precisely the kind of foggy legal ambiguity that the ACLU set out to warn the court against. The ACLU's suggested standard may be more protective than the Second Circuit's Kelner analysis but--and this is the point--who can tell?

The ACLU brief did not expressly link the true threats standard to Brandenburg, although the brief discussed the relevance of Brandenburg [FN200] and other political-speech-cum-threats cases such as Watts and Claiborne Hardware. [FN201] Instead, the ACLU brief focused on the Ninth Circuit's "objective, speaker-based test" for true threats. [FN202] This test assesses whether speech constitutes a true threat by determining "whether a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault." [FN203] Presumably the Ninth Circuit considers this analysis objective in the sense that it focuses on the precise language used by the speaker, although it is difficult to consider the test objective in application given the open-ended nature of a jury-based *578 "reasonable person" analysis. In any event, to the extent that the Ninth Circuit analysis focuses on the actual language used by a speaker, it coincides with the incitement component of the Brandenburg standard.

The ACLU criticized this singular focus on language for the obvious reason that it would permit punishment of speakers who had no intention of threatening anyone, but "merely intended to communicate an idea in the exercise of First Amendment rights." [FN204] Thus, the ACLU argued that a subjective, speaker-based test should be added to the objective Ninth Circuit analysis. This subjective test would "require evidence, albeit circumstantial or inferential, that the speaker actually intended to induce fear, intimidation, or terror, namely, that the speaker intended to threaten." [FN205] This suggestion is laudable, and amounts to a proposal that at least two of the three Brandenburg elements be part of the true threats analysis.

The problem with the ACLU approach is that almost as soon as it proposes its stronger test for true threats, it starts hedging the standard. In the section of its brief labeled "A Suggested Methodology for Considering True Threats," the ACLU sets forth the incitement analysis (i.e., the Ninth Circuit's objective test) and the ACLU intent requirement (the subjective test), [FN206] but then adds that:

[A] court should also consider other related factors, including: (a) how explicit and unambiguous is the alleged threat; (b) is the alleged threat directed to a specific individual or to specific individuals, rather than to a group at large; (c) was the alleged threat communicated to the listener and, if so, in what manner; and (d) does the alleged threat threaten to inflict or cause serious harm. These are not necessarily all of the factors that should be considered, but they appear to this amicus to be among the most important considerations for ensuring that liability is imposed only upon "true threats" and that speech protected under the First Amendment is neither punished nor chilled. [FN207]

There is no discussion of these additional factors, and it is unclear whether the ACLU intended to suggest that these factors were related to the objective and subjective tests, or intended rather to add these factors to the primary paradigm. Regardless of whether these new factors merely amplify the two main tests, or supplement them, they nevertheless illustrate the primary flaw in the ACLU's approach to the Nuremberg Files litigation. The ACLU essentially proposes that juries be presented with a *579 melange of slippery factors to apply to speech that will often be ambiguous and is, by definition (because the speech is the subject of litigation), so abrasive, offensive, or confrontational that it has made someone angry enough to sue. It almost goes without saying that this amorphous test will be applied by juries in a manner that will inevitably result in the suppression of speech by unpopular speakers. [FN208] The use of this laundry list of factors would avoid this problem only if it were incorporated into a strict Brandenburg-style test that permitted speech to be sanctioned only if all the factors were present in a given case, and only if all linguistic ambiguities were resolved in favor of the speaker. The ACLU is unwilling to go this far, however, and in the sections of its brief where it discussed the Nuremberg Files website and posters, the ACLU concluded that each of these could be deemed true threats under the ACLU analysis. [FN209]

Additional evidence of the ACLU's First Amendment vacillation in the Nuremberg Files litigation can be found in the organization's vain attempts to distinguish the Supreme Court's political speech precedents applying Brandenburg in contexts similar to the Nuremberg Files. The authors of the ACLU brief seem to have recognized that Claiborne Hardware, in particular, presented a major obstacle to holding the Nuremberg Files defendants liable for disseminating true threats, and the ACLU brief devotes several pages to distinguishing the case. [FN210] As the ACLU acknowledges, Claiborne Hardware is factually quite similar to the Nuremberg Files case, and the language uttered by Claiborne Hardware defendants--such as the speeches promising that necks would be broken if anyone broke the economic boycott [FN211]--are far more explicitly threatening than anything in the Nuremberg Files record. Nevertheless, the ACLU distinguishes Claiborne Hardware on the theory that "the statements were not directed toward anyone in particular, only toward that vague and general class of persons who failed to abide by the boycott." [FN212]

According to the ACLU, the Claiborne Hardware defendants' speech could not be sanctioned because the category of true threats includes only speech "directed against a specific and identifiable victim or victims. . . . A threat directed generally against a group at large is not a 'true *580 threat." ' [FN213] In contrast, the ACLU argued that the Nuremberg Files website and posters could be considered true threats because they identified the threatened individuals by name. [FN214] This, then, is the conclusion of the ACLU's analysis: Overtly threatening statements (e.g., "If we catch you going in any of them racist stores, we're gonna break your damn neck") made specifically and in person to the residents of a small town in the context of continuing violence is not a true threat because it does not mention anyone by name, but general statements that are not overtly threatening and are disseminated to a more general audience across the entire country are true threats simply because they mention specific individuals by name. On such slim distinctions ACLU free speech briefs usually do not turn.

C. Schenck Returns to the Ninth Circuit: The Nuremberg Files District Court and the Unfettered Jury

With support from the likes of the Second Circuit and the ACLU, the prospects of the Nuremberg Files defendants were never very bright, but they soon found out that things could actually get worse. The district court in the Nuremberg Files case managed to devise an analysis that makes the two flawed standards discussed above look like truly civil libertarian proposals.

The district court started with the Ninth Circuit's self-described "objective speaker-based test" relied upon by the ACLU. [FN215] The court then noted that the Ninth Circuit has rejected the ACLU proposal that plaintiffs in true threats cases be required to demonstrate that a speaker specifically intends to carry out the alleged threats. [FN216] The possibility of an imminent harm or clear and present danger element of a threats analysis was not even raised. Thus, the entire focus of a threats case in the Ninth Circuit, according to the district court, is on the words actually spoken or written by the speaker. [FN217]

After dispensing with (or ignoring) the imminent harm and specific intent elements of a Brandenburg-type analysis, the district court turned to the only real issue left in the case: How explicit must a speaker's words be *581 to satisfy the Ninth Circuit's "objective" test? [FN218] The district court resolved this issue, in short, by holding that even ambiguous or innocuous speech may be deemed a threat under the proper circumstances. [FN219] The district court judge concluded, "I tend to agree with the defendants and the ACLU that the statements at issue do not contain any expressly or apparently threatening language. Nevertheless, I do not agree with defendants that a threat must be apparent on its face before context may be considered." [FN220] In the end, according to the district court, context is everything, and the jury is the agency that determines whether all the factual circumstances surrounding a case transform abrasive political diatribes against named persons into true threats. [FN221] The court offers no guidelines or reference points or even, in the ACLU manner, a laundry list of factors to be taken into consideration. Apparently the jury will know a threat when it sees one.

In fairness to the district court, threats occur in many different contexts, and no absolute rule can possibly cover the full range of possible situations in which true threats are communicated. But this point raises two very important questions that the district court did not even attempt to analyze: first, how does one determine when a situation is imminently threatening; and second, how is a jury's discretion to be limited so that the contextual analysis of threats will not simply replicate the routine suppression of dissent evident in the applications of earlier generations of speech regulations? The Nuremberg Files district court has no satisfactory answer to these questions. The district court did not seem to believe that imminence of harm is a requirement in threats cases, so the judge did not address the first question at all. And because the court imposed no imminence- of-harm or intent requirements on the prosecution of threats, the court's implicit answer to the second question is that juries are limited only by the ad hoc oversight of judges who themselves are given little guidance in analyzing a particular example of allegedly illegal expression. This did not work well in the era of Schenck, [FN222] and it can be expected to work no better today.

The better answer to these questions depends on going beyond the minimalist, ad hoc approach of the Nuremberg Files district court in favor of a far more subtle analysis of the contexts in which threats arise. The first step in such an analysis would be to distinguish between public threats such as those made by the Nuremberg Files defendants, and threats that are *582 made surreptitiously or are otherwise communicated in private to the person that is targeted by the threat. The second step in a proper true threats analysis is to impose in all cases some variation on the three elements of the Brandenburg standard. After a brief review of the academic literature's contributions on the subject of threats, Part IV will propose an analysis incorporating both of these steps.

D. A Brief Detour into the Academic Literature of Threats

The district court in the Nuremberg Files case did not attempt to review the academic literature on the First Amendment in its effort to craft a constitutional standard for true threats. This was not a major oversight, because there is surprisingly little discussion of the concept of threats in the academic First Amendment literature. There are few law review articles on the subject, and academic overviews of constitutional law and the First Amendment tend to ignore the topic altogether. Neither the two main constitutional law hornbooks [FN223] nor Rodney Smolla's update of Melville Nimmer's First Amendment treatise [FN224] discusses threats as an independent First Amendment topic, and none of these books contains an index listing for "threats."

This is not to say that academic analysts have uniformly failed to notice that the prosecution of threats might raise First Amendment problems. Zechariah Chafee's 1920 book Freedom of Speech was one of the first comprehensive modern treatments of the First Amendment. [FN225] Even at that early date Chafee noted the potential constitutional problems with the then-new statute prohibiting threats against the president, [FN226] and Chafee perceptively linked his discussion of threats with his discussion of other contemporary legislation directed against seditious utterances (such as revolutionary advocacy). [FN227] Aside from noting the obvious relationship between regulations directed against threats and regulations directed against sedition, however, Chafee did not dwell long on the subject of threats. Chafee was more concerned with establishing basic constitutional protection for radical advocacy than with articulating the various contexts in which threatening language might be protected by the First Amendment. Thus, he offered only the sketchiest thoughts on the subject of threats, none of which contribute significantly to delineating the relationship between strong post- Brandenburg protections of radical political advocacy and the constitutionally unprotected category of true threats. [FN228]

*583 Most of the more recent academic discussions of the constitutional status of threats have been equally unhelpful. With very few exceptions, most references to threats in the law review literature are both cursory and conclusory. [FN229] Threats are most frequently mentioned in conjunction with other examples of "no-value" speech--such as libel, obscenity, and fighting words--as evidence that the First Amendment permits the government to regulate speech far more than is commonly believed. [FN230] The existence of a constitutionally unprotected category of threats is often used to support specific policy proposals advocating a reduction in First Amendment protection for other antisocial speech. [FN231] Many of these proposals argue in favor of speech regulation so extensive that it would cast doubt upon large parts of settled First Amendment jurisprudence, including basic protections against government regulation of socially disfavored viewpoints. [FN232] *584 Purely academic arguments for a root-and-branch reconfiguration of First Amendment law have their place in scholarly discussions, but such arguments do little to assist in the real-world task of identifying the line between constitutionally protected and unprotected threats in the legal context--one in which not a single member of the Supreme Court has indicated a desire to abandon either Brandenburg or the strict rules prohibiting the government from regulating the content or viewpoint of speech. [FN233]

In contrast to the superficial treatment of threats in most recent academic free speech analyses, C. Edwin Baker and Kent Greenawalt have contributed to the academic literature two much more serious attempts to grapple with the difficult task of distinguishing constitutionally protected and unprotected threats. [FN234] Although their approaches to the problem are somewhat different, they arrive at conclusions about the constitutionality of threats that are roughly consistent with the incitement analysis of the *585 Brandenburg line of cases, and also with the proposals in Part IV, which use Brandenburg as the lodestar of a proper threats analysis.

Professor Baker's starting point is the crucial distinction between persuasive and coercive speech. [FN235] This distinction follows from the fundamental assumption underpinning the First Amendment that individuals are autonomous beings who have the right to decide for themselves whether to adopt a particular world view. [FN236] The same assumption about personal autonomy protects the individual's right to advocate specific actions in pursuit of a particular world view, and likewise requires the individual to assume responsibility for the consequences of any actions undertaken to achieve ideological objectives. As Baker articulates this point, "respecting the listener's integrity as an individual normally requires treating the listener as responsible for her conduct unless she has been coerced or forced into the activity." [FN237] This principle is relevant to the regulation of threats because "[w]hen [the listener] does something because of threats, the will of [[[the threatener] is operating or predominant." [FN238] Hence, Baker concludes that the First Amendment does not protect "speech designed to disrespect and distort the integrity of another's mental processes or autonomy." [FN239]

As an illustration of the latter principle, Baker argues that the First Amendment does not protect threats taking the form of blackmail (e.g., a speaker's threat to expose a listener's activity unless the listener gives the speaker money) because in this situation the speech is being used solely as a means of exercising the speaker's personal power over the listener by undermining the listener's autonomy. [FN240] Blackmail is therefore unrelated to the speaker's own "autonomy-based claim to use her speech to embody and advance her substantive values." [FN241] In contrast, Baker argues that the First Amendment should protect threats expressed by whistleblowers (e.g., a speaker's threat to reveal a listener's wrongdoing unless the listener ceases the wrongful conduct) because in this situation the "speech is designed less to use special knowledge to gain power over the listener than to stop the very activity that could give [the speaker] this special power." [FN242] The difference is significant because the autonomy- protection function of the First Amendment "assumes that people must be able to use *586 speech as part of the activity of pursuing or implementing their substantive values. The effect on others occurs because of this pursuit in the whistle-blowing case, and, therefore, this manner of affecting others should be a protected aspect of the speaker's liberty." [FN243]

Kent Greenawalt reaches approximately the same conclusion as Baker via a somewhat different route. Instead of focusing on the distinction between persuasive and coercive speech, Greenawalt focuses on the difference between assertions of fact and value (which should be constitutionally protected) and "situation-altering" assertions (which should not). [FN244] Assertions of fact and value are protected in Greenawalt's scheme because such assertions relate to a central purpose of the First Amendment, fostering individual self- governance. [FN245] "Government suppression of talk about values circumscribes the process of self-discovery, perpetuates institutions that otherwise would no longer win knowing acceptance, and frustrates the desire of people to converse with others about matters that concern them deeply." [FN246] This principle applies even to assertions of fact or value that are not explicitly political in nature because "[p]olitics is not hermetically sealed off from other human concerns. Speech that is not explicitly political often has political implications . . . ." [FN247] Situation-altering utterances, on the other hand, are solely intended to change the world, rather than communicate facts or values about it. [FN248] Examples include utterances that have the effect of changing a listener's legal status (such as a marital decree or judicial order), utterances that impose obligations (such as a contract), and "manipulative threats." [FN249]

It is this last category of situation-altering utterances that Greenawalt uses to distinguish between threats that should be protected by free speech principles and those that should not. According to Greenawalt, "manipulative threats" should generally receive no constitutional protection, while what he calls "warning threats" should usually be protected. [FN250] Greenawalt defines a manipulative threat as a threat that "involves the creation of prospective harmful consequences in order to achieve one's objective." [FN251] One example of a manipulative threat is "Pay me or I'll tell your parents about the abortion." [FN252] A warning *587 threat, on the other hand, is a threat that conveys the speaker's future reaction to the listener's behavior; for example, "Stop the affair or I'll tell your wife." [FN253] Warning threats are generally protected, Greenawalt argues, because they convey facts and values about the speaker's likely response to the listener's actions, and are not merely instrumental efforts to alter reality to the advantage of the speaker. [FN254]

The differences between Greenawalt's manipulative threat/warning threat dichotomy and Baker's coercion/persuasion dichotomy are often difficult to discern. Greenawalt correctly notes that the main theoretical difference lies in Baker's "focusing on the appropriateness of the kind of pressure placed on the subject of the threat rather than on the relationship between the communication and an already existing state of affairs." [FN255] On the other hand, Baker's emphasis on individual autonomy probably comes closer to capturing what most people would recognize as the spirit of the First Amendment:

[F]rom the perspective of individual liberty or autonomy, Greenawalt's assumption is wrong--the first amendment should generally protect people's expressive activities that alter the world in which they live. According to the liberty theory, an important aspect of the right of free speech is to change the world. The relevant issue relates to how the speaker alters the situation--she or he cannot do so in a coercive manner or by invasions of other people's realm of decision-making authority. [FN256]

The theoretical differences between Greenawalt and Baker are not insignificant, but the more important point is that these theoretical differences are unlikely to produce much in the way of practical differences in the application of the two theories. It would be simple to characterize most of Greenawalt's manipulative threats in the language of Baker's coercion theory, and equally simple to characterize Greenawalt's warning threats as "persuasive." The larger problem is that both Greenawalt's and Baker's definitions are too vague and abstract to give any real practical guidance about which real-world threats are protected and which ones are not. Greenawalt candidly admits this: "The difficulties of determining whether a threat is manipulative or warning cast serious doubt on the wisdom of ever using that distinction directly in statutory drafting." [FN257] It would be equally unwise, presumably, to employ this difficult *588 determination as the reference point for constitutional adjudication of particular threats cases. The same sorts of difficulties are evident in Baker's coercion- persuasion dichotomy. As the Supreme Court has discovered in the Establishment Clause area, "coercion" is not a self-defining term, but rather is susceptible to broadly divergent interpretations. [FN258]

Under both Greenawalt's and Baker's theories, the Nuremberg Files defendants probably would fare better than they did in the district court. The Nuremberg Files posters and website conveyed facts and values about the defendants' views and responses to the actions of abortion providers, and would arguably be protected as "warning threats" under Greenawalt's theory. The speech was also clearly intended to persuade abortion providers to abandon their activities as a means of advancing the defendants' substantive values about abortion, and would be protected as "persuasive" under Baker's theory. But it would not be difficult to construct an argument characterizing the Nuremberg Files as "manipulative" and "coercive." [FN259] Thus, although both Greenawalt and Baker help to identify the interests lying behind constitutional rules protecting some threats and not others, neither theory helps us distinguish one from the other in the context of an actual dispute.

The simple solution to the dilemma of applying First Amendment interests to actual examples of threatening speech is to return to the Court's own analysis in cases such as Brandenburg and Claiborne Hardware. This analysis captures the essence of both Greenawalt's concern with protecting speech that contributes to public discussions of value disputes and Baker's concern with protecting the interests of individual autonomy. The Brandenburg analysis also provides a much more efficient mechanism for recognizing when speech has created an immediate risk of harm of the sort that justifies state intervention against the speaker. The next section elaborates on the application of Brandenburg to both public and private threats.

*589 IV. Protecting the Constitutional Value of Threats

The central theme of this Article is that the Supreme Court has already defined the constitutional standard for threats in its modern political speech cases, which the lower courts have ignored by seeking to construct different, less protective First Amendment standards. [FN260] This theme assumes without stating explicitly that there is some constitutional value to threats. What that value may be is not immediately evident. After all, most political discourse can be conducted without using threatening language, and the sort of political bullying that is implicit in the Nuremberg Files website and posters contributes little to rational political discussions. It is not outlandish to argue that although judgments such as the one in the Nuremberg Files case will undoubtedly chill speech, most of the country will be better off when this particular corner of the marketplace of ideas is silenced.

However, this argument is a very dangerous one, and one that cuts against the grain of the First Amendment decisions issued by the Supreme Court since 1960. [FN261] The argument is dangerous because, like most other modern censorship proposals, it proposes to sever the form of speech from the content of speech. [FN262] Why does anyone have to say these things this way if one can communicate the underlying substance of the argument in a less offensive way? Why did Paul Cohen have to wear a jacket bearing the inscription "Fuck the Draft," [FN263] to cite a prominent example, when he could have just as easily communicated the same antiwar message in an op-ed column in the local newspaper? The answer to these questions should be clear to any reader, and viscerally obvious to any writer. Form is content, and any attempt to regulate one will inevitably change the meaning--and reduce the effectiveness--of the other. When reduced to its essence, this is the single most important point Justice Harlan made in his classic opinion in Cohen v. California: "[W]e cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process." [FN264] As Justice Harlan took pains to point out, language contains both cognitive and emotive *590 elements, and under the American constitutional system both of those elements remain firmly in control of the speaker--not the government. [FN265] Does anyone really doubt that an anti-abortion message is made more forceful by the speaker's announcement that he is willing to engage in illegal action to carry out those views?

Of course, announcing one's willingness to engage in illegal action is different than actually engaging in illegal action. The government cannot suppress the announcement, but it certainly can prohibit and punish the action itself. [FN266] Threats cases are so difficult for First Amendment theorists because the protected announcement and the prohibited action often seem to be identical. Thus, the assumption that one can punish the action is used as a justification for punishing the announcement. But threats that are announced in public to the entire world are akin to the speech of the incitement cases, which advocated illegal action and encouraged members of the audience to consider violating the law. This is why the Supreme Court treated Claiborne Hardware as a Brandenburg case, [FN267] even though the speaker in Claiborne Hardware explicitly used threats and intimidation to enforce compliance with his group's political agenda. [FN268] In both Claiborne Hardware and Brandenburg the speakers used the threat of violence as a graphic means of expressing to their followers their deep commitment to common goals. But in both of those cases, the threat of violence was also used as a negative tool with which to attack the speakers' opponents and frighten them into submission. To those in the midst of an emotional and uncompromising battle over basic principles, fear will often appear to be a quicker and more effective tactic than persuasion to achieve the group's objectives.

The thing that separates constitutionally unprotected true threats from constitutionally protected Claiborne Hardware-style political intimidation is the dual personalization of the threat. "Dual personalization" means simply that true threats are personalized in two respects: first, the speaker specifically identifies the target of the threat, and second, the speaker communicates the intent to carry out the threat personally or to cause it to be carried out. The dual personalization characteristic limits the range of possible true threats to those that identify only a small number of people in a limited geographic area where the speaker has some ability to carry out the threat. The speech in Brandenburg was not a true threat because *591 the speaker threatened such a large population--essentially all racial and religious minorities--that no individual within that group would feel singled out and threatened personally. The speech in Claiborne Hardware did not constitute a threat because although the group threatened was probably small enough and sufficiently proximate to the speaker, there was insufficient evidence that Charles Evers himself intended to carry out the threat or instigate its execution by another.

Note that in both Brandenburg and, especially, Claiborne Hardware, the targets of the speakers' wrath had good cause to be fearful. For example, beatings and violence took place subsequent to Evers's speeches, and that violence was doubtlessly connected to the boycott Evers supported. [FN269] But the message of Claiborne Hardware and the political speech cases on which it is based is that generalized fear created by emotional confrontations between political antagonists is a natural by-product of such controversies, even if the speaker's speech does not ultimately instigate violence. Although the government can and should make every effort to prevent injuries on both sides of such battles, and punish those who do violate the law, the government cannot carry out its policing functions by censoring the leaders of the competing factions.

 

This analysis illustrates the flaw in Nat Hentoff's explanation of his support for the liability judgment against the Nuremberg Files defendants. Hentoff wrote that the defendants should be held liable for their speech because "when a doctor targeted on a Web site has to wear a bulletproof vest, a true threat has been made." [FN270] As a general rule this misstates the relevant First Amendment jurisprudence. The clear implication of Claiborne Hardware is that the Nuremberg Files defendants cannot be held liable for their speech alone unless the doctors who are mentioned in the website and posters are responding to the immediate danger of action by the defendants themselves; the defendants cannot be held liable for the actions of others who have merely been inspired or encouraged by the defendants' speech.

As Claiborne Hardware itself demonstrates, it is not difficult to adapt Brandenburg principles to guide courts in separating intimidating political speech from true threats. [FN271] All three elements of Brandenburg--intent, immediate danger, and incitement/objective language [FN272]--are relevant to cases involving threatening language expressed to the general public. As *592 the Court repeatedly emphasizes in Claiborne Hardware, a speaker engaged in public discourse about emotional issues will frequently resort to excessive, violent, and even threatening language to communicate his deep commitment to his point of view. [FN273] In the absence of proof that all three components of Brandenburg are present in a particular case, a speaker simply has not crossed the line between generalized (though repulsive) political speech and particularized--and illegal--true threats.

Like all cases involving radical speech or advocacy of illegal conduct, these cases involve a balance of the interest in unfettered expression against the risks that a speaker will carry out his threat. At least in cases where the alleged threat is expressed in public so that anyone, including representatives of police agencies, can hear and respond to the speaker's expression, speech that fails one or more of the three Brandenburg factors should be protected from civil or criminal sanctions. In part this reflects the simple practical calculus that a speaker truly intent on harming someone would not announce that fact to the whole world and thereby risk being impeded by an intervenor. This is not to say there is no risk whatsoever; there will always be speakers who act irrationally. Thus, the government can certainly respond to implicitly intimidating speech by taking preventative measures to protect the targets of the speaker's diatribes, and the police can certainly gather additional evidence indicating that the speaker is undertaking criminal activity. But censoring the speech--either through criminal law or censorial civil sanctions--cannot be reconciled with the principles of modern political speech jurisprudence.

Everything said in this section so far relates to speech such as that issued by the Nuremberg Files defendants: allegedly threatening speech in a public place that is expressed to the world and therefore accessible to everyone. It seems clear that the Brandenburg standard should apply unmodified in public situations. The situation is more complicated in cases where the speech does not occur in public, but is communicated surreptitiously to the target of the threat. Should Brandenburg also apply to these cases? What makes threats communicated privately more disturbing than publicly threatening speech is the intuitive judgment that the private communication of a threat is more likely to indicate a seriousness of purpose than the attention-grabbing public bluster that characterizes cases such as Watts and the Nuremberg Files litigation. Nevertheless, private *593 cases involving alleged threats implicate First Amendment concerns. Although speech that intrudes persistently into someone's home can be regulated to a far greater extent than speech in nonresidential contexts, [FN274] the First Amendment still protects a speaker's ability to communicate one-on-one with individuals outside the home--even if the listeners do not agree with the speaker's point of view. [FN275]

The key to resolving cases involving alleged threats communicated in a private manner is to distinguish between communications reflecting ideological clashes among political antagonists, and communications that have the primary purpose of instilling fear of violence or bodily injury. The concept of true threats--like the concept of "fighting words" [FN276] and the concept of incitement--rests on the assumption that a true threat is outside the scope of First Amendment protection because it operates more like a physical action than a verbal or symbolic communication of ideas or emotions. [FN277] The inevitability of distinguishing between communication and speech-action is the point of Justice Holmes's famous admonition that free speech does not protect someone who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theater, [FN278] and is the conceptual core of the narrow modern definition of *594 fighting words as those that "have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed." [FN279] In both instances the point is that the First Amendment does not "protect a man . . . against uttering words that may have all the effect of force." [FN280] Thus, speech is unprotected to the extent that it causes an immediate, visceral reaction that by its nature is unmediated by the intervention of time for reflection and the possibility of a rational response. [FN281]

The standard for regulating threats should reflect this underlying assumption that true threats are something other than constitutionally protected speech, and the converse assumption that expression containing threatening language that is predominantly intended to communicate ideas or viewpoints is constitutionally protected speech. Thus, private communications that include threatening language should be subject to civil or criminal sanctions only to the extent that it is clear from the context that the communication effectively operates, and is intended to operate, as something other than an attempt to engage in the exchange of ideas, thoughts, attitudes, or emotions.

In practical terms, the Brandenburg factors would not have to be modified substantially to accommodate the special considerations applicable to privately communicated threats. The Brandenburg factors requiring proof of intent and imminent danger are contextual in nature and therefore could easily be applied to a privately communicated threat. Thus, the first question in such a case would be whether the speaker intended to say something that would cause the target of the threat to respond out of fear of what the speaker has promised to do. The second question would be whether the circumstances were such that the rational person hearing this threat would respond by immediately altering his behavior in the manner intended by the speaker. In a private threat case, the first two Brandenburg factors would be applied differently than in a public threat case only in the following sense: it will often be more plausible to conclude that imminent danger is present in the circumstance of the speaker focusing the speech on one particular target than in the situation in which the *595 speaker is trying to muster support for some ideological stance among members of the general public. [FN282]

Modification of the final Brandenburg element--inciting illegal action--to fit the needs of private threat cases is potentially more troublesome than the modifications to the intent and immediate danger elements. The first two Brandenburg elements can easily be modified to take into account the special requirements of a privately communicated threat without making the factors so elastic that they provide virtually uncontrolled discretion to finders of fact. Modification of the third Brandenburg factor, on the other hand, inevitably runs that risk.

The third Brandenburg element requires proof that the speaker explicitly incite illegal action. [FN283] In public threats cases, an explicitness requirement is also necessary to protect abrasive political speech that falls short of indicating strongly that the speaker intends to take immediate action to execute his threat. [FN284] With regard to privately communicated threats, however, a different dynamic often exists between the speaker and the target of the threat. In cases where the speaker has personal information about the target's family and personal habits, an otherwise innocuous communication (for example, a telephone call in which the caller asks a parent, "Did you know your daughter will be leaving school any minute now?") may convey a threat as clearly as the most explicit description of personal harm. Thus, in private threat cases it is reasonable to adopt something akin to the Ninth Circuit's reasonable person modification of the Brandenburg explicitness factor. [FN285] This would allow a fact-finder to *596 infer from the overall context whether the communication contained a viable threat.

This modification is potentially troublesome because any test that allows a judge or jury to infer meaning from ambiguous language opens the door for viewpoint-based suppression of unpopular speech. On the other hand, the context of privately communicated threats is such that an explicitness requirement would make it impossible to protect against threats that are nonexplicit, but obvious to parties who interpret the communication against the background of shared knowledge about the personal circumstances of the potential victim. Therefore, in private threat cases the First Amendment interest must rest on two safeguards. First, although this proposed modification of the third Brandenburg requirement permits sanctions against a privately communicated threat that is not explicit, the First Amendment should still require that the speech be such that no reasonable person having all the relevant information would fail to understand that a direct and immediate threat has been communicated. All ambiguities should be resolved in favor of the speaker. Second, because ambiguous private speech might feasibly become the legitimate subject of government sanctions under this modified Brandenburg standard, the intent and imminent danger requirements of that standard take on special significance. Even more so than in ordinary Brandenburg cases, these requirements would serve as the primary protections of First Amendment rights in cases involving privately communicated threats. With the slight modifications noted above in mind, any doubts about whether these requirements have been satisfied should be resolved in favor of the speaker.

The standards described here inevitably lead to the conclusion that the claims against the Nuremberg Files defendants should have been dismissed. The speech at issue in the case is very public; indeed, it is intended to draw the attention of the entire country--adversaries as well as allies--to the particular views of the speakers. In the end, the defendants in this case did what dissident political speakers have done throughout the country's history: They made their point loudly, even obnoxiously, and in an excessive manner that is in direct proportion to their ostracism from the mainstream political process. But in the absence of some evidence that these particular defendants were poised immediately to carry out particular threats that they clearly communicated to specific people, the case comes down to a fairly mundane matter of constitutionally protected political speech.

V. Conclusion

Few members of the civil rights and civil liberties community will shed tears over the plight of the Nuremberg Files defendants. This case -- *597 like the litigation over the Nazi march through Skokie in our own era, [FN286] and the prosecution of violent Socialist Party splinter factions in the era of Holmes and Brandeis [FN287]--once again forces civil libertarians to take up the unsavory cause of people who, if they were to obtain power, would happily eliminate most civil liberties and perhaps even the civil libertarians themselves.

And yet the free speech claims of the Nuremberg Files defendants are defensible. If as a society we take free speech seriously (which means taking Brandenburg seriously, even where threats are an issue), this is not even a close case. One of the central lessons of the Holmes and Brandeis free speech dissents--and the modern majority opinions that follow their lead--is that fear of political extremism cannot dictate the protections offered to those with whom most people in society vehemently disagree. [FN288] Justice Brandeis's phrasing of this point is by now almost a constitutional cliche: "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." [FN289] The practical application of this principle is that legal sanctions cannot be applied to political outsiders simply because they express in extreme terms a world view that is so beyond the ken of mainstream society that they are demonized and then ostracized from the political culture.

In Brandeis's era men feared communists and burned (or at least imprisoned) socialists. In our own age each ideological group has its chosen demons, and these disparate groups are united only in their willingness to use the government's power to silence their opponents, permanently if possible. In contrast, the First Amendment reflects the unifying theme of the entire Bill of Rights, which is intended to prevent the poisonous joinder of fear and power. This means that the Constitution forces us into a position of being constantly threatened by what we most dread--that we will allow our political enemies to win enough converts to obtain power and force their will on us. The most satisfying response to *598 this dread--censoring one's enemies--is the true threat to the healthy longevity of every democratic political system. Coming to terms with that greater threat requires the maturity to recognize that the more mundane threats presented by the overheated demagoguery of the Nuremberg Files defendants pale by comparison.

[FNa1]. Fonvielle & Hinkle Professor of Litigation, Florida State University College of Law. B.A. Eckerd College, 1978; J.D. Columbia University 1982.

[FN1]. There are three published opinions in the Nuremberg Files litigation. See Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 945 F. Supp. 1355 (D. Or. 1996) [hereinafter Planned Parenthood I] (denying defendants' motion to dismiss); Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 23 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (D. Or.) [hereinafter Planned Parenthood II] (denying defendants' motion for summary judgment); Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (D. Or. 1999) [[[hereinafter Planned Parenthood III] (announcing the jury award and imposing an injunction against the defendants). The website is still available on the Internet. See Visualize Abortionists on Trial: The Nuremberg Files (visited Nov. 17, 1999) <http://www.netfreedom.net/nuremberg> [hereinafter Nuremberg Files Website].

[FN2]. The contents of the posters and website are summarized in Planned Parenthood II, supra note 1, at 1186-88. The website is described in greater detail infra Part II.

[FN3]. See, e.g., Douglas C. Melcher, Delineating the Scope of a Licensee's Obligation to Broadcast Political Advertisements, 66 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 842, 848-49 (1998) (discussing Becker v. FCC, 95 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 1996), a case in which a U.S. congressional candidate sought to use "graphic images of aborted fetuses" to express his stand against abortion); Nicholas J. Johnson, Principles and Passions: The Intersection of Abortion and Gun Rights, 50 Rutgers L. Rev. 97, 173 (1997) ("One of the most powerful images in the late term abortion debate is a pamphlet containing a chilling illustration of the procedure ...."); Jeffrie G. Murphy, Freedom of Expression and the Arts, 29 Ariz. St. L.J. 549, 568 (1997) (questioning whether traditional supporters of free speech will advocate the rights of those artists "protesting abortion through graphic pictures of aborted fetuses"); Norma Otto Moon & Don Otto Moon, Editorial, Prayer Needed in Schools, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 4, 1999, at A18, available in 1999 WL 5270654 ("[Congress] took God out of our schools, thus allowing Satan in (pre-marital sex, teen-age pregnancies, abortions, drug abuse, violence in and out of schools, children killing children, SAT scores dropping).").

[FN4]. See Planned Parenthood II, supra note 1, at 1187-88 & n.9.

[FN5]. See id. at 1186 (describing one poster that listed names, addresses, and telephone numbers of twelve abortionists).

[FN6]. See Nuremberg Files Website, supra note 1, at <http:// www.netfreedom.net/nuremberg/aborts.html>.

[FN7]. See Planned Parenthood III, supra note 1, at 1155-56 (explaining the conclusion that the defendant's speech engendered liability under FACE). FACE provides for criminal penalties, civil damages, and injunctions against anyone who

by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services.

18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1) (1999).

[FN8]. Ira Glasser, Letter to the Editor, Murder Threats Are Not "Free Speech," Wall St. J., Feb. 17, 1999, at A23, available in 1999 WL-WSJ 5441035.

[FN9]. See Dennis Byrne, Editorial, Cleaning Up Cultural Waste, Chi. Sun Times, June 16, 1999, at 41, available in 1999 WL 6543959 (noting the apparent double standard among civil libertarians who usually tolerate no restrictions on the Internet, yet have not defended the Nuremberg Files website). But see James C. Goodale, Can Planned Parenthood Silence Pro Life Website?, N.Y. L.J., Apr. 2, 1999, at 3 (stating that the Nuremberg Files ruling "has received a barrage of criticism from First Amendment defenders").

[FN10]. Nat Hentoff, When "Pro-Lifers" Threaten Lives, Wash. Post, Feb. 27, 1999, at A21, available in 1999 WL 2202264 (suggesting that although he is a "pro-lifer," he did not support the defendants in the Nuremberg Files case).

[FN11]. "True threats" is merely the term courts apply to threatening language that is not constitutionally protected. The Supreme Court has not provided a definitive interpretation of the term, and the lower courts have been unable to agree on the components of a true threat. Part I, infra, describes the Court's introduction of this term in Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707 (1969), and its connection to the Court's subsequent political speech opinions. Part III, infra, describes the various efforts by lower courts and academics to define the term. Part IV, infra, critiques these efforts and provides a comprehensive definition of true threats that is derived from the Court's political speech case law.

[FN12]. See infra Part IV.

[FN13]. See, e.g., Shackelford v. Shirley, 948 F.2d 935, 937-40 (5th Cir. 1991) (upholding the conviction under the Mississippi telephone harassment statute of a defendant who threatened a former supervisor with "an ass whipping"); Standing Comm. on Discipline v. Ross, 735 F.2d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1984) (finding that an attorney's threat to punch opposing counsel in the "f---ing face" is so improper that it "speak[s] for [itself]").

[FN14]. See, e.g., Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919); Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919); Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (1919); Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) (all upholding federal Espionage Act convictions of antiwar activists under a weak "clear and present danger" standard that allowed juries to infer danger from speech itself); Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 371 (1927); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 671 (1925) (both holding that the weak "clear and present danger" analysis of Schenck does not apply when the legislature itself has specifically identified the dangerous speech).

[FN15]. See, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (per curiam) (establishing a three-part test for analyzing whether speech advocating violence falls outside First Amendment protection and is therefore permissibly subject to regulation); see also NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 928-29 (1982) (applying the Brandenburg test to overturn a civil damages award predicated on rhetoric used by certain civil rights protestors); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 108-09 (1973) (per curiam) (applying the Brandenburg test to overturn the conviction of an antiwar protestor for his inflammatory statements about the president). These cases are discussed in greater detail below.

[FN16]. Compare, e.g., United States v. Malik, 16 F.3d 45, 50 (2d Cir. 1994) (determining that a certain threshold of contextual evidence could support a conclusion that ambiguous language constitutes an actual threat), and United States v. Kelner, 534 F.2d 1020, 1024-25 (2d Cir. 1976) (holding that the decision of whether certain speech constitutes an actual threat rather than political hyperbole is a question of fact for the jury), with Lovell v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 90 F.3d 367, 372 (9th Cir. 1996) (imposing an objective test on the determination of whether the specific words chosen constitute a true threat), and Watts v. United States, 402 F.2d 676, 680 (D.C. Cir. 1968), rev'd, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) (interpreting, without finding any constitutional objections, a regulation of threatening speech as having "no requirement that the person uttering the threats have an intention to carry them out").

[FN17]. 394 U.S. 705 (1969).

[FN18]. Id. at 705; see also 18 U.S.C. § 871(a) (1969) (prohibiting any person from communicating "any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States").

[FN19]. Watts, 394 U.S. at 706.

[FN20]. Id.

[FN21]. Id. at 707.

 

[FN22]. See, e.g., United States v. McMillan, 53 F. Supp. 2d 895 (S.D. Miss. 1999) (upholding a contempt citation of the defendant for violating the threats provision of a consent decree by repeatedly shouting "Where's a pipebomber when you need him?" at doctors who worked at an abortion clinic); People v. Holder, 456 N.E.2d 628 (Ill. App. 1982) (upholding the conviction of a labor organizer under the Illinois intimidation statute, after the organizer threatened a strike if the employer did not sign a contract), rev'd 451 N.E.2d 831, 834 (Ill. 1983) (holding the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it "prohibits threats of insubstantial evil"); People v. Rubin, 158 Cal. Rptr. 488 (Cal. App. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 821 (1980) (upholding the conviction of a Jewish Defense League activist for solicitation to murder after the activist held a press conference in which he offered $500 to anyone who would kill or maim a member of the American Nazi Party); see also discussion infra Part III.

[FN23]. See Watts, 394 U.S. at 708 (acknowledging that the defendant's comments were a "kind of very crude ... [manner of] stating a political opposition to the President").

[FN24]. Id. ("[T]he statute initially requires a true 'threat." ').

[FN25]. Id.

[FN26]. Id.

[FN27]. Id. (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)).

[FN28]. 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam). A Ku Klux Klan leader was indicted under an Ohio statute for "advocat[ing] ... the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform." Id. at 444-45. At a KKK rally filmed by a news crew, Brandenburg stated that "We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken." Id. at 446. Brandenburg also said that 400,000 Klansmen would march on Congress on July 4th. Id. The Court held that constitutional guarantees of free speech do not permit a state to prohibit the advocacy of violence except when such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. Id. at 447. Because the Ohio statute failed this test, the Court struck it down. Id. at 448-49.

[FN29]. See, e.g., Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 574 (1995) (citing Brandenburg as an example of the First Amendment's protection of advocacy "that in someone's eyes [is] misguided, or even hurtful"); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 409 (1989) (citing Brandenburg as the standard governing speech advocating illegal activities).

[FN30]. See Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 447 (holding that "advocacy of the use of force or law violation" may not be prohibited "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action").

[FN31]. 414 U.S. 105 (1973).

[FN32]. Id. at 107.

[FN33]. Id. at 106-07.

[FN34]. Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 456 (Douglas, J., concurring).

[FN35]. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964) (stating that debate on public issues should be "robust and may well include unpleasantly sharp attacks on government officials").

[FN36]. See supra text accompanying note 34.

[FN37]. 458 U.S. 886 (1982).

[FN38]. See id. at 909-10; infra notes 54-64 and accompanying text.

[FN39]. See id. at 928; infra notes 47-53 and accompanying text.

[FN40]. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 928; see also supra text accompanying notes 24, 30, 33.

[FN41]. The only citation to Claiborne Hardware in any of the published opinions in the Nuremberg Files litigation, for example, appears in an early opinion denying the defendants' motion to dismiss. See Planned Parenthood I, supra note 1, at 1373 (citing Claiborne Hardware not as a substantive limitation on the concept of true threats, but rather as establishing the formal requirement that plaintiffs must plead specifically the identities of speakers and the precise expression that contains alleged threats being challenged in a lawsuit).

[FN42]. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 889-93.

[FN43]. Id. at 893.

[FN44]. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 393 So.2d 1290, 1301 (Miss. 1980), rev'd, 458 U.S. 886 (1982).

[FN45]. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 896-98.

[FN46]. See id. at 902-04; infra notes 47-64 and accompanying text.

[FN47]. For a description of the alleged threats in the Nuremberg Files litigation, see infra Part II.

[FN48]. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 902.

[FN49]. Id. at 886.

[FN50]. Id. at 900 n.28 (emphasis omitted) (quoting the conclusions made by the chancellor who initially heard the case).

[FN51]. Id.

[FN52]. Id. at 902.

[FN53]. Id.

[FN54]. Id. at 904-06.

[FN55]. Id. at 903.

[FN56]. Id. at 904.

[FN57]. Id. at 904-06.

[FN58]. Id. at 927-29.

[FN59]. Id. at 927.

[FN60]. Cf. id. at 928. The Court noted:

Evers' ... addresses generally contained an impassioned plea for black citizens to unify ... and to realize the political and economic power available to them.... Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause.

Id.

 

[FN61]. Id. at 913 ("This Court has recognized that expression on public issues 'has always rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values." '); see also New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269 (1963) ("The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has been long settled by our decisions."); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369 (1983) ("The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system."); Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (1926) (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("[P]ublic discussion is a political duty; and ... this [is] a fundamental principle of the American government.").

[FN62]. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 928.

[FN63]. Id. at 927 (emphasis in original).

[FN64]. Id. at 928 (quoting New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 270).

[FN65]. The lower courts' disregard of the relevance of Claiborne Hardware in cases of alleged threats is illustrated by the decisions of the Second and Ninth Circuits, discussed infra Part III(C), which the Nuremberg Files court relied upon in rejecting the defendants' free speech arguments. See Planned Parenthood II, supra note 1, at 1189-94. In sum, no Second Circuit case involving threats has ever cited or discussed Claiborne Hardware. This includes the most recent Second Circuit threats case, United States v. Malik, 16 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 1994). The Ninth Circuit appears equally oblivious to the effects the Supreme Court's political speech doctrine should have on threats cases. The district court in the Nuremberg Files case cites seven Ninth Circuit decisions as relevant to its consideration of the constitutional standard for threats: Lovell v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 90 F.3d 367 (9th Cir. 1996); Melugin v. Hames, 38 F.3d 1478 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v.Gilbert, 884 F.2d 454 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Davis, 876 F.2d 71 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Mitchell, 812 F.2d 1250 (9th Cir. 1987); Roy v. United States, 416 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1969). See Planned Parenthood II, supra note 1, at 1189-94. None of these seven Ninth Circuit threats decisions cited by the Nuremberg Files court even cite, much less discuss, Claiborne Hardware. See also Robert Kurman Kelner, United States v. Jake Baker: Revisiting Threats and the First Amendment, 84 Va. L. Rev. 287, 303 (1998) (reasoning that lower courts appear to "regard Claiborne Hardware as an incitement rather than a threat case" because they have never cited Claiborne Hardware in cases arising under the general purpose anti-threat statute, 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)).

[FN66]. See supra note 41.

[FN67]. See Planned Parenthood II, supra note 1, at 1191-94 (discussing the different tests that have been used in various federal circuits to evaluate whether statements constitute threats).

[FN68]. Nuremberg Files Website, supra note 1.

[FN69]. Id.

[FN70]. Id. The Nuremberg Files website was originally posted by Neal Horsley using the Internet service provider Mindspring; Mindspring closed the website three days after the Oregon district court verdict. See Nation in Brief: Antiabortion Web Site Pulled, Wash. Post, Feb. 7, 1999, at A15, available in 1999 WL 2198203. Mr. Horsley has re-posted the website using a new Internet service provider. Oddly enough, the plaintiffs of the Nuremberg Files litigation did not name Mr. Horsley as a defendant in the suit. See Planned Parenthood III, 41 F. Supp.2d 1130, 1131 (D. Or. 1998). The website is nevertheless the centerpiece of the lawsuit in two respects. First, the court concluded that the defendants supplied Mr. Horsley with the contents of the website, which were deemed by the court to be a true threat to the plaintiffs. Id. at 1133-34 (describing the Nuremberg Files, noting its dissemination on the Internet, and concluding that the content of the site constitutes a true threat). Second, the continued operation of the Nuremberg Files website is very likely enjoined by the district court's permanent injunction. Id. at 1155-56 (prohibiting (1) the defendants, their agents, and anyone in active concert with the defendants from providing information about the plaintiffs to the Nuremberg files or other similar websites that may be created, if that information has a specific intent to threaten, and (2) "publishing, republishing, reproducing, and/or distributing" personal identifying information about the plaintiffs that is contained in the Nuremberg Files).

Although the terms of the injunction are limited by the requirement of "a specific intent to threaten," this requirement must be viewed in terms of the very broad conception of a "threat" incorporated in the district court's opinion and discussed infra subpart III(C). The broad definition of threat may effectively outlaw any attempts by ideological allies of the Nuremberg Files defendants to post an unmodified version of the original Nuremberg Files website. However, the same definition may not embrace the posting of a duplicate website by a person who is opposed to the ideology professed by the website but who is protesting as a matter of freedom of speech the censorship of the website. One example of this phenomenon is Karin Spaink's brief posting of the Nuremberg Files website on the Dutch XS4 All web server. See Karen Kaplan, Technology Shuttered Antiabortion Site Surfaces on Dutch Server, L.A. Times, Feb. 23, 1999, at C3, available in 1999 WL 2132562; see also Karin Spaink, The Nuremberg Files: Motivation and Introduction (visited Aug. 16, 1999) <http://xs4all.nl/<tilde>kspaink/nuremberg/index.html> (explaining Ms. Spaink's reasons for reposting the website).

[FN71]. See Planned Parenthood II, supra note 1, at 1186.

[FN72]. Id.

[FN73]. Id. at 1186-87.

[FN74]. See id. at 1184 n.1.

[FN75]. Id. at 1187.

[FN76]. See infra subpart II(B).

[FN77]. See Planned Parenthood II, supra note 1, at 1187.

[FN78]. Id. at 1191-94 (discussing why the Ninth Circuit has not adopted the narrow requirement that a threat "be so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution" and confirming "that an objective speaker-based test that considers all the circumstances is sufficient").

[FN79]. Id. at 1194 (finding questions of fact as to whether the posters constituted true threats, and thus would not deserve First Amendment protection).

[FN80]. Webster's College Dictionary defines "threat" as a "declaration of an intention to inflict punishment, injury, etc., as in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course." Webster's College Dictionary 1390 (Robert B. Costello ed. 1991). The Ninth Circuit has adopted a similar definition to substantiate its legal definition of the word "threat." See United States v. Gilbert, 884 F.2d 454, 457 (9th Cir. 1989) (defining, using Webster's Dictionary, the word threat to mean "an expression of an intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage on another"). As vague and broad as a dictionary definition is when it is invoked for legal purposes, the Ninth Circuit further expanded the category of threatening speech when it permitted juries to make open-ended contextual judgments in determining whether speech meets the above definition. See United States v. Gordon, 974 F.2d 1110, 1117 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the determination of whether one's statements constitute a threat requires the fact-finder to look to "the entire factual context of those statements including: the surrounding events, the listeners' reactions, and whether the words are conditional").

[FN81]. See Nuremberg Files Website, supra note 1.

[FN82]. See id.

[FN83]. See Nuremberg Files Website: This Is What God's Child Looks Like Before the Baby Butchers Begin Their Deadly Business, supra note 1, at <http:// www.netfreedom.net/nuremberg/smdead.html>.

[FN84]. Id.

[FN85]. See Planned Parenthood II, supra note 1, at 1186-87.

[FN86]. See supra text accompanying notes 48-53.

[FN87]. See supra text accompanying notes 32-33.

[FN88]. See supra note 28.

[FN89]. See supra text accompanying notes 18-19.

[FN90]. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 928 (1982); see also Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 108 (1973); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 448-49 (1969); Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969).

[FN91]. Hess, 414 U.S. at 108 (emphasis in original) (quoting Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 447).

[FN92]. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25 (1971) (overturning a breach of the peace conviction of a man who wore a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft" in a California courthouse).

[FN93]. See Papish v. Board of Curators of Univ. of Mo., 410 U.S. 667, 671 (1973) (holding the cartoon to be constitutionally protected speech and overturning the public university's expulsion of the student responsible for publishing the cartoon). One of the most inflammatory portions of the website is the pictures of bloody fetuses, but such pictures have been permitted in other contexts where they may intrude even more easily into the consciousness of unwilling viewers. For example, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a candidate's right to show similar pictures in campaign advertisements aired during prime-time television spots. See Becker v. FCC, 95 F.3d 75, 84-85 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (striking down an FCC order permitting local broadcasters to restrict advertisements containing images of bloody fetuses during prime time, on the grounds that the order violated both the "no censorship" and "equal opportunity" provisions of the Federal Communications Act).

[FN94]. See Planned Parenthood, supra note 1, at 1186-88; Planned Parenthood III, supra note 1, at 1132-33 (both indicating that the "Deadly Dozen" poster, the poster of Dr. Robert Crist, and the Nuremberg Files provided personal identification information about doctors and health care clinics).

[FN95]. See supra text accompanying note 91.

[FN96]. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 927, 928 (1982) (stating that "strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric" that implies "an unlawful form of discipline" and creates "a fear of violence" is not enough to "remove [the] speech from the protection of the First Amendment").

[FN97]. See, e.g., Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957); Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951); Masses Publ'g Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917), rev'd, 246 F. 24 (2d Cir. 1917).

[FN98]. See supra text accompanying notes 30-34.

[FN99]. See Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 390-91 (1987) (holding that a county constable's office could not fire an employee who commented to a co-worker immediately after the attempted assassination of President Reagan that "[i]f they go for him again, I hope they get him"). The Court protected the speech in Rankin, even though the protections given the speech of public employees are much more limited than the protections given that of private individuals. See Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 154 (1983) (noting a public employer's interest in efficiency, and requiring deference to employer sanctions against employee speech that does not regard a matter of public concern and that disrupts the workplace).

[FN100]. See Planned Parenthood III, supra note 1, at 1136 (indicating that "Dr. Slepian's name [was] crossed out on the Nuremberg Files website" after he "was shot and killed by a sniper").

[FN101]. See, e.g., Patricia J. Mays, Abortion Foe Files Suit over Web Site Closing, Boston Globe, June 12, 1999, at A5, available in 1999 WL 6066860 (noting that on the Nuremberg Files website "the names of those who have been killed are crossed out and those injured listed in gray"); Hentoff, supra note 10 (quoting Planned Parenthood attorney Maria Vallo, who argued that "crossing out the names of murdered people 'is a hit list, a clear message to those not crossed out that "you will be next" " '); Debra J. Saunders, Pro-Life Murder, Inc., S.F. Chron., Feb. 7, 1999, at 7, available in 1999 WL 2679458 (mentioning that on the list of sixteen law enforcement officers, the names of the two who had died were crossed out); Cynthia Tucker, Anti-abortionists' Threats Test Limits of Free Speech, Atlanta J. & Const., Feb. 7, 1999, at F5, available in LEXIS, News Library, NYT File (pointing out that the website "has, chillingly, crossed out the names of those abortion providers who have been killed"); When Speech Becomes a Threat, N.Y. Times, Feb. 6, 1999, at A14, available in LEXIS, News Library, NYT File (observing that the website "chillingly showed Dr. Barnett Slepian's name crossed out from its list shortly after his murder").

[FN102]. See supra text accompanying notes 22-25 & 55-63.

[FN103]. See Neal Horsley, Alleged Abortionists and Their Accomplices, Nuremberg Files Website, supra note 1, at <http:// www.netfreedom.net/nuremberg/aborts.html> (categorizing abortion doctors and their assistants as "Abortionists: the baby butchers," "Clinic Owners & Workers: their weapons providers and bearers," "Judges: their shysters," "Politicians: their mouthpieces," "Law Enforcement: their bloodhounds," and "Miscellaneous Spouses & Other Blood Flunkies").

[FN104]. 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[FN105]. Id.

[FN106]. See Planned Parenthood II, supra note 1, at 1186-87.

[FN107]. See id. at 1186-87.

[FN108]. Id. at 1186.

[FN109]. Id. at 1187.

[FN110]. Id. at 1186.

[FN111]. In Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, the Supreme Court struck down an injunction imposing a "floating buffer zone" around persons entering and leaving abortion clinics. 519 U.S. 357, 377 (1997). The Court held that the injunction was too broad because it prevented protesters from "communicating a message from a normal conversational distance or handing leaflets to people entering or leaving the clinics who are walking on the public sidewalks." Id. at 377. This broad prohibition on "[l]eafletting and commenting on matters of public concern" was deemed an impermissible restriction of "classic forms of speech that lie at the heart of the First Amendment." Id. In Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., the Court upheld an injunction imposing a 36-foot buffer zone around an abortion clinic to protect patients and workers entering and leaving the clinic. 512 U.S. 753, 768-69 (1994). The Court noted, however, that protesters had a right to picket the clinic, and indeed "protesters standing across the narrow street from the clinic can still be seen and heard from the clinic parking lots." Id. at 770. The Court also struck down two provisions imposing 300-foot buffer zones around the clinic and the residences of clinic personnel: "[I]t is difficult, indeed, to justify a prohibition on all uninvited approaches of persons seeking the services of the clinic, regardless of how peaceful the contact may be, without burdening more speech than necessary to prevent intimidation and to ensure access to the clinic." Id. at 774 (emphasis in original). Finally, in Frisby v. Schultz, the Court upheld a local ordinance restricting "focused picketing" outside individual residences. 487 U.S. 474, 483 (1988). The ordinance was passed in response to protests outside the residence of a doctor who performed abortions. Id. at 476. The Court emphasized, however, that the ordinance was narrow in focus and would still allow demonstrators to distribute protest flyers, enter residential neighborhoods, make telephone calls, and engage in door-to-door persuasion. Id. at 484. Frisby implies that some protests in residential neighborhoods must be permitted to satisfy the "alternative channels of communication" component of the Court's time, place, and manner analysis, which the Court discussed in the context of public forum cases in Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983). See also Gregory v. City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 111-13 (1969) (overturning multiple disorderly conduct convictions after the protesters in question ignored police requests to terminate a demonstration in the mayor's residential neighborhood).

[FN112]. 402 U.S. 415 (1971).

[FN113]. The agent allegedly fomented panic selling among white residents in the hope of obtaining devalued real estate listings he could then sell to African-Americans. Id. at 416.

[FN114]. Id. at 417.

[FN115]. Id.

[FN116]. See id. at 418-20.

[FN117]. See supra text accompanying note 57.

[FN118]. Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 418-19 (1971) (citations omitted).

[FN119]. See supra text accompanying note 71.

[FN120]. See supra text accompanying note 73-75.

[FN121]. See Nuremberg Files Website, supra note 1, at <http:// www.netfreedom.net/nuremberg/ Hanzo.html>; id. at <http:// www.netfreedom.net/nuremberg/Prohaska.html>.

[FN122]. See id. at <http://www.netfreedom.net/nuremberg/tiller.html>.

[FN123]. See id. at <http://www.netfreedom.net/nuremberg/MD.html>.

[FN124]. See id. at <http://www.netfreedom.net/nuremberg/killers.html>.

[FN125]. See Planned Parenthood II, supra note 1, at 1188 ("The primary issue raised by defendants' motion is whether the statements plaintiffs attribute to them are protected speech subject to First Amendment protection.").

[FN126]. See Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 532 (1989) (permitting a newspaper to publish the names of sexual assault victims); Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 496-97 (1975) (holding that the television broadcast of a rape victim's name was permissible in this case).

[FN127]. See Smith v. Daily Mail Publ'g Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979) (addressing the newspaper publication of the name of an alleged juvenile delinquent).

[FN128]. Florida Star, 491 U.S. at 541; see also Smith, 443 U.S. at 102 (stating that a penal sanction for publication of lawfully obtained, truthful information "requires the highest form of state interest to sustain its validity"); Cox Broad. Corp., 420 U.S. at 491 (focusing on the "narrower [issue] ... namely, whether the State may impose sanctions on the accurate publication of the name of a rape victim obtained from ... judicial records ... open to public inspection," and convincing itself "that the State may not do so").

[FN129]. See supra note 25 and accompanying text.

[FN130]. See supra text accompanying note 34.

[FN131]. See, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). The Rosenberger Court announced:

It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys.... Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional.... Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.

Id. at 828-29 (citations omitted).

[FN132]. See supra text accompanying note 30.

[FN133]. See supra text accompanying notes 30 & 40.

[FN134]. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).

[FN135]. Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 109 (1973) (concluding that a person's right to free speech cannot be circumvented by criminal charges for disorderly conduct unless there is evidence that the speaker's words were intended to incite impending unrest).

[FN136]. Even the Fourth Circuit's recent decision in Rice v. Paladin Press, Inc., 128 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1515 (1998), implicitly recognized the importance of imminence in applying the intent requirement of Brandenburg. The defendant in the case had published an instruction book entitled Hit Man. Id. at 241. The family of a murder victim who had been killed by someone using the book sued the publisher for wrongful death. Id. The Fourth Circuit reversed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the publisher, which the district court had based on Brandenburg and other First Amendment grounds. Id. at 250.

The appellate court's opinion overturning the district court's ruling is a questionable application of Brandenburg in several respects. Among other things, the appellate court concluded that Brandenburg applies only to general advocacy of lawlessness, rather than speech containing specific, "technical" instructions pertaining to lawless behavior. Id. A consistent application of this principle would open virtually all fact-specific publications or broadcasts to legal liability for the actions of anyone who acts on the "instructions"--a conclusion that virtually all other courts have rejected. See, e.g., Herceg v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 814 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 959 (1988) (holding that in the absence of incitement, no claim could be brought against a magazine for publishing details of "autoerotic asphyxiation"); Olivia N. v. National Broad. Co., 126 Cal. App. 3d 488, 495 (1981) (holding that in the absence of incitement, a television network could not he held liable for broadcasting details of a crime that was later mimicked by juveniles).

In another departure from the common understanding of Brandenburg, the Fourth Circuit also held that a jury could infer intent from the fact that the publication was not distributed through general-interest bookstores, but rather through a catalog business reply "request form reprinted in one of Paladin's advertisements in specialized magazines such as Soldier of Fortune." Rice, 128 F.3d at 255. The court held that based on this evidence a jury could permissibly conclude that a publication "is not at all distributed to the general public and that, instead, it is available only to a limited, self-selected group of people interested in learning from and being trained by a self-described professional killer" who are therefore "contemplating or highly susceptible to the commission of murder." Id. The notion that a book's publisher may be subject to greater potential liability if the publisher targets his market carefully has no basis in Brandenburg, and in fact more closely resembles statements made in the Supreme Court's early, and now discredited, Espionage Act cases. See, e.g., Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204, 209 (1919) (upholding a jury verdict of violation of the Espionage Act against a German-language newspaper opposed to American involvement in World War I by observing that "the circulation of the paper was in quarters where a little breath would be enough to kindle a flame and that the fact was known and relied upon by those who sent the paper out"). In the modern era, such decisions raise due process as well as free speech concerns. See Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 513 (1948) (rejecting on vagueness grounds a New York statute banning publication of explicit crime stories merely because they involved "accumulations of details of heinous wrongdoing which plainly carried an appeal to that portion of the public who ... are disposed to take to vice for its own sake").

Despite these deviations from Brandenburg, the Fourth Circuit at least emphasized several times that the defendant in Rice had stipulated not only to a general intent to facilitate or encourage murders, but also to a specific intent to assist the particular murder that led to the litigation. See Rice, 128 F.3d at 241 ("[T]he publisher has even stipulated that, through publishing and selling Hit Man, it assisted [the murderer] in particular in the perpetration of the very murders for which the victims' families now attempt to hold Paladin civilly liable."). If this is in fact what the publisher stipulated, then it would satisfy the imminence component of the intent requirement of Brandenburg, and it is fair to assume that the court relied heavily on this stipulation in recognition of this factor. See id. at 263, 264 (concluding that the publisher fulfilled the imminence component established in Brandenburg by engaging in much more than "abstract teaching" or "mere advocacy").

[FN137]. See generally Planned Parenthood III, supra note 1, at 1134-35, 1138-53.

[FN138]. Id. at 1134-35.

[FN139]. Id. at 1135.

[FN140]. Id. at 1137 (remarking that Life Advocate magazine, an Advocates for Life Ministries publication, featured Paul Hill and two others convicted of violence against abortion doctors on its cover).

[FN141]. Id. at 1141.

[FN142]. Id. at 1135 (praising the shooter's sniper tactic and predicting that more abortionists would quit as a result of the killing).

[FN143]. Id. at 1136.

[FN144]. The book in question is entitled A Time to Kill, and it argues that the shooting of abortionists and the destruction of abortion clinics amounts to justifiable homicide. See id. at 1136.

[FN145]. Id. (quoting Andrew Burnett, co-founder of American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) and executive director of Advocates for Life Ministries (ALM)).

[FN146]. Id. at 1136-38.

[FN147]. Id. at 1136 (explaining that those in the anti-abortion movement who refused to commit to nonviolence were no longer allowed to be leaders of Operation Rescue, leading to the formation of the organization that became the ACLA).

[FN148]. Id.

[FN149]. See id. at 1138-53 (listing 455 findings of fact, most of which detail specific crimes and the parties responsible for them, and finding that many individual defendants have never disassociated themselves from, nor expressed disapproval of, any of ACLA's activities).

[FN150]. See supra text accompanying note 30.

[FN151]. See, e.g., Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211, 213 (1919) (describing the defendant's praise of individuals who had been convicted of aiding and abetting, failing to register for the draft, and obstructing the enlistment service); Masses Publ'g Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535, 542-43 (S.D.N.Y. 1917) (Hand, J.), rev'd, 246 F. 24 (2d Cir. 1917) (denying that the Espionage Act of 1917 permitted the Postmaster General to refuse mail service to The Masses, a journal of articles and cartoons expressing opposition to World War I and applauding individuals who, as conscientious objectors, resisted the law). Although the district court decision in Masses Publishing was ultimately reversed by the Second Circuit, Judge Learned Hand's opinion influenced later developments of free speech standards. See David M. Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years 272-73, 323-26, 334 (1997) (mentioning that Eugene V. Debs's brief before the Supreme Court borrowed language from Judge Hand's opinion, and also remarking on the influence Judge Hand exerted on the civil liberties figure Zechariah Chafee, Jr.).

[FN152]. See Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919) (Holmes, J.) (asserting that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent"); see also infra note 186.

[FN153]. Debs, 249 U.S. at 211.

[FN154]. Id. at 212.

[FN155]. 385 U.S. 116 (1966).

[FN156]. See id.

[FN157]. Id. at 123 (describing the legislature's charge that Bond's statements "gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and Georgia, violated the Selective Service laws, and tended to bring discredit and disrespect on the House").

[FN158]. Id. at 133-34 (analyzing Bond's statements and judging them to "not demonstrate any incitement to violation of the law").

[FN159]. See Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 390-91 (1987).

[FN160]. Compare Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) (affirming a conviction for criminal anarchy of a member of the left-wing section of the Socialist party who participated in the publication of that organization's manifesto), with United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 48-49 (1984) (upholding an individual's right to participate in any organization--even one that advocates illegal activity).

[FN161]. See, e.g., Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) (upholding the criminal syndicalism conviction of a member of the Communist Labor party of California, even though the defendant publicly opposed the violent goals and methods endorsed by the party majority). The constitutional standard used to uphold this conviction was effectively overruled by the Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 506-08 (1951) (observing that while the Whitney Court's analysis was to inquire whether a statute outlawing certain kinds of speech was "reasonable," subsequent opinions instead focused on the "clear and present danger" standard formulated by Justice Holmes).

[FN162]. See Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203, 207-08 (1961) (interpreting the Smith Act, a progeny of the Cold War campaign against communism, as outlawing membership in certain organizations only if the individual was an active member who had knowledge of the organization's advocacy of illegal activity and who possessed the specific intent to further the organization's illegal objectives).

[FN163]. 18 U.S.C. § 2385 (1994) (criminalizing association with certain types of organizations).

[FN164]. Scales, 367 U.S. at 228.

[FN165]. Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 186 (1972).

[FN166]. United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 265 (1967) ("The statute quite literally establishes guilt by association alone, without any need to establish that an individual's association poses the threat feared by the Government in proscribing it.").

[FN167]. See supra note 66 and accompanying text.

[FN168]. See Planned Parenthood III, supra note 1, at 1154-55.

[FN169]. See supra text accompanying notes 23-27.

[FN170]. See, e.g., United States v. Cox, 957 F.2d 264, 266 (6th Cir. 1992); United States v. Kelner, 534 F.2d 1020, 1026-27 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1022 (1976) (both applying a threat analysis that does not require proof of specific intent); United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir. 1990) (applying a "reasonable person" threat analysis); Shackelford v. Shirley, 948 F.2d 935, 937-38 (5th Cir. 1991) (rejecting the application of Brandenburg standards to the constitutional analysis of threats); United States v. Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d 913, 922 n.5 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1943 (1996); In re M.S., 896 P.2d 1365, 1372-74 (Cal. 1995) (both rejecting application of the Brandenburg immediacy element to the analysis of threats).

[FN171]. See Planned Parenthood II, supra note 1, at 1188-94.

[FN172]. 534 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1976).

[FN173]. See Kelner, 534 F.2d at 1024-25 (upholding the lower court's decision to allow the jury to determine whether certain speech constituted an actual threat rather than mere political hyperbole).

[FN174]. 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (1994).

[FN175]. Kelner, 534 F.2d at 1021-22.

[FN176]. Id. at 1027 (stating that a narrow construction of the word "threat" is consistent with the protection of First Amendment interests).

[FN177]. Id.

[FN178]. Id. at 1026 n.8 (arguing that the Supreme Court rejected Judge Skelley Wright's endorsement of a clear and present danger test and instead adopted a narrow construction of the federal threats statute).

[FN179]. Id. at 1027.

[FN180]. See United States v. Francis, 164 F.3d 120, 123 (2d Cir. 1999).

[FN181]. Watts v. United States, 402 F.2d 676, 680 (D.C. Cir. 1968).

[FN182]. See Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969), rev'd, 394 U.S. 705 (1969).

[FN183]. 53 Cong. Rec. 9378 (1916).

[FN184]. Approached from a slightly different perspective, the absence of a specific intent requirement creates a negligence standard because the speaker is accountable for carelessly phrasing a political point of view. In his Watts dissent, Judge Skelley Wright reviewed several cases in which "men have been convicted of doing something thoughtless--of using offensive language, with some implication against the President's life, which was meant as jest, as rhetoric, or as hyperbole." Watts, 402 F.2d at 689 (Skelley Wright, J., dissenting). Justice Marshall made the same point in his concurring opinion in Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35 (1975):

In essence, the objective interpretation [of the federal presidential threats statute] embodies a negligence standard, charging the defendant with responsibility for the effect of his statements on his listeners. We have long been reluctant to infer that a negligence standard was intended in criminal statutes ... [We] should be particularly wary of adopting such a standard for a statute that regulates pure speech.

Id. at 47 (Marshall, J., concurring). Justice Douglas joined Justice Marshall's dissent on this point, but the Court's majority did not reach the issue.

[FN185]. See Weaver v. Nebo Sch. Dist., 29 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1283 (D. Utah 1998) (asserting that Brandenburg protects "unpopular or even hateful ideas"); see also James Weinstein, A Brief Introduction to Free Speech Doctrine, 29 Ariz. St. L.J. 461, 463 (1997) (noting that prior to Brandenburg, juries often overestimated the danger posed by unpopular speech).

[FN186]. See Masses Publ'g Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535, 540 (S.D.N.Y. 1917), rev'd, 246 F. 24 (2d Cir. 1917) ("If one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation."). During this period, Hand liked to contrast his objective analysis of language to the contextual focus of Justice Holmes's clear and present danger test. See supra note 152. In a letter to Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Judge Hand stated: "I do not altogether like the way Justice Holmes put the limitation. I myself think it is a little more manageable and quite adequate a distinction to say that there is an absolute and objective test to language." Gerald Gunther, Learned Hand and the Origins of Modern First Amendment Doctrine: Some Fragments of History, 27 Stan. L. Rev. 719, 763 (1975). The modern Supreme Court has resolved the dilemma of the two different tests by simply incorporating both of them into the three-part Brandenburg analysis. See id. at 754-55 (asserting that "Brandenburg combines the most protective ingredient of the Masses incitement emphasis with the most useful elements of the clear and present danger heritage"); Bernard Schwartz, Holmes Versus Hand: Clear and Present Danger or Advocacy of Unlawful Action?, 1994 Sup. Ct. Rev. 209, 238 (recognizing Gunther's aforementioned analysis of the Brandenburg test). Thus, objectively inciteful language cannot be prosecuted unless its context also threatens an immediate illegal response from the audience and, conversely, a speech made in a dangerously inflammatory context cannot be prosecuted if the speaker avoids overly inciteful language. See, e.g., Watts, 394 U.S. at 707-08 (overturning a man's conviction for stating a desire to shoot President Johnson because he made the statement at a political rally, without any apparent ability to execute that sentiment at the time it was uttered).

[FN187]. Gunther, supra note 186, at 766. Professor Gunther put it another way:

Once you admit that the matter is one of degree ... you give to Tomdickandharry, D.J., so much latitude ... that the jig is at once up.... [ [ [Even] the Nine Elder Statesmen, have not shown themselves wholly immune from the "herd instinct" and what seems "immediate and direct" to-day may seem very remote next year even though the circumstances surrounding the utterance be unchanged. I own I should prefer a qualitative formula, hard, conventional, difficult to evade.

Id. at 770.

[FN188]. 16 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 1994).

[FN189]. Id. at 50-51.

[FN190]. Id. at 50.

[FN191]. Cf. United States v. Francis, 164 F.3d 120, 123 (2d Cir. 1999) (remarking that "first amendment concerns are satisfied by construing 'the word "threat" to exclude statements which are, when taken in context, not "true threats" because they are conditional and made in jest" ' (quoting United States v. Kelner, 534 F.2d 1020, 1023 (2d Cir. 1976))). Admittedly, Malik represents a very different and much stronger case than the Nuremberg Files for the application of the true threats doctrine, because Malik involved a private letter communicating a specific threat to one individual, rather than a political diatribe discussing a group of individuals and aimed at the general public. See Malik, 16 F.3d at 45. As I will explain below, one-to-one threats create different problems than generalized discourse containing threatening language, and they deserve treatment under a different First Amendment analysis. See infra notes 274-85 and accompanying text.

[FN192]. See Planned Parenthood II, supra note 1, at 1190.

[FN193]. Id. at 1191.

[FN194]. Kelner, 534 F.2d at 1023.

[FN195]. See infra notes 274-85 and accompanying text.

[FN196]. See Paul L. Murphy, World War I and the Origin of Civil Liberties in the United States 177 (1979) (writing that during the post-WWI period, "many ambitious national leaders had no intention of dismantling the mechanisms for wartime repression and planned to extend them into peacetime America"); Paul L. Murphy, The Meaning of Freedom of Speech: First Amendment Freedoms from Wilson to FDR 26 (1972) (asserting that during this time the need "was for a creation of a consensus so that unwarranted and raucous speech would be quietly and automatically suppressed or discredited and its purveyors checked"); Michael J. Klarman, Rethinking the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Revolutions, 82 Va. L. Rev. 1, 12 (1996) (observing that the Supreme Court only began to extend First Amendment protection to unpopular ideas in the wake of the Red Scare); Robert F. Nagel, How Useful Is Judicial Review in Free Speech Cases?, 69 Cornell L. Rev. 302, 306 (1984) (opining that during the post-WWI period, the Supreme Court had "contributed almost nothing to the protection of vigorous public debate").

[FN197]. See ACLU Foundation of Oregon Amicus Curiae at Introduction, Planned Parenthood II, 23 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (D. Or. 1998) (No. 95-1671-JO) (Sept. 22, 1998) <http://www.aclu-or.org/aclu/ppbrief.htm> [hereinafter ACLU Brief] (offering the amicus as assistance to the court's task of "distinguishing unprotected threats from protected speech ... in a manner consistent with the principles and dictates of the First Amendment").

[FN198]. Id. at Introduction.

[FN199]. Id. at Conclusion.

[FN200]. Id. at Argument II(D).

[FN201]. Id. at Argument I(A) & (C).

[FN202]. Id. at Argument I(A).

[FN203]. See United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir. 1990).

[FN204]. ACLU Brief, supra note 197, at Argument I(B).

[FN205]. Id.

[FN206]. Id. at Argument I(D).

[FN207]. Id.

[FN208]. Justice Brandeis addressed this concern when he referred to "the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities" in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 376 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Seven years earlier, he had remarked on his fear that "an intolerant majority, swayed by passion or by fear, may be prone in the future, as it has often been in the past, to stamp as disloyal opinions with which it disagrees." Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 466, 495 (1920) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); see also supra note 185 and accompanying text.

[FN209]. ACLU Brief, supra note 197, at Argument II(A)-(C).

[FN210]. Id. at Argument I(C).

[FN211]. See supra text accompanying note 53.

[FN212]. ACLU Brief, supra note 197, at Argument I(C).

[FN213]. Id.

[FN214]. Id. at Argument II(A)-(C).

[FN215]. See Planned Parenthood II, supra note 1, at 1191; see also supra notes 202-71 and accompanying text.

[FN216]. Planned Parenthood II, supra note 1, at 1191-93 (observing that the Ninth Circuit's test merely requires that the defendant intend to make the threat and does not require that the defendant actually intend to carry out the threat).

[FN217]. See id. at 1191-93 (describing the Ninth Circuit's objective test entailing an analysis of the speaker's intent based on the language and context of the statements).

[FN218]. Id. at 1193-94.

 

[FN219]. Id. at 1194.

[FN220]. Id. at 1193-94.

[FN221]. Id.

[FN222]. See supra notes 14, 187 and accompanying text.

[FN223]. See Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law (2d ed. 1988); John E. Nowak & Ronald D. Rotunda, Constitutional Law (5th ed. 1995).

[FN224]. Rodney A. Smolla, Smolla and Nimmer on Freedom of Speech (3d ed. 1996).

[FN225]. Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Freedom of Speech (1920).

[FN226]. Id. at 202-03.

[FN227]. See id.

[FN228]. To the extent that Chafee did make substantive comments on the subject, these comments would seem to argue in favor of protecting speech like that of the Nuremberg Files defendants, who routinely praise and generally advocate violent activities, but studiously avoid directly inciting it. Chafee writes:

If one directly incites another to murder an official and the murder takes place, the speaker is, of course, punishable. The same holds good, even if the incitement proves unsuccessful. If the speaker does not solicit any particular person, but eloquently appeals to a large audience for some new Charlotte Corday, or if naming no specific victim he urges the assassination of an indefinite number of men from some hated group, the case is not altered. Even if he alleges the loftiest motives, the social interest in truth and progress is far outweighed by the interest in order, and there is a direct interference with the safety of life. When he does not ask for any future killing, but merely glorifies such an event in the past, the danger lessens and the power to punish becomes more uncertain. The time elapsed is perhaps an element.

Id. at 204-05.

[FN229]. See, e.g., Steven J. Heyman, Righting the Balance: An Inquiry into the Foundations and Limits of Freedom of Expression, 78 B.U. L. Rev. 1275, 1318, 1323 (1998) (stating that threats, as a limitation on speech, are "hardly controversial" and that "[i]t is clear that assaults and threats ... are unprotected by the First Amendment").

[FN230]. See, e.g., Richard Delgado, Campus Antiracism Rules: Constitutional Normatives in Collision, 85 Nw. U. L. Rev. 343, 377 (1991) (listing threats along with other examples of "no-value" speech).

[FN231]. See, e.g., Heyman, supra note 229, at 1378-79 (arguing that hate speech should not be covered by the First Amendment because such speech may violate laws against "assault, threats, fighting words, incitement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or invasion of privacy"); Delgado, supra note 230, at 377 (providing threats as an example of unprotected speech to support the idea that racist speech should likewise fall outside the protections of the First Amendment).

[FN232]. Several recent proposals to permit extensive government regulation of sexually or racially derogatory speech use the threats doctrine in this way. See, e.g., Delgado, supra note 230, at 387 (arguing that the First Amendment does not protect threats and that protection should also be denied to racist speech "because it is the means by which society constructs a stigma- picture of disfavored groups"); Mari J. Matsuda, Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's Story, 87 Mich. L. Rev. 2320, 2351-61 (1989) (discussing the unprotected status of threats and arguing that similar rules should apply to certain forms of racist speech). These proposals share the postmodern tendency to conflate speech and action. Thus, in Catherine MacKinnon's formulation, "Social inequality is substantially created and enforced--that is, done--through words and images. Social hierarchy cannot and does not exist without being embodied in meanings and expressed in communications." Catherine A. MacKinnon, Only Words 13 (1993). There are many problems with these theories, which are irredeemably authoritarian in the sense that they favor government control over crucial aspects of individual value formation. The theories are for this reason deeply inconsistent with democratic notions of popular control of government, and especially inconsistent with the prohibitions of official orthodoxy embodied in the First Amendment. For elaboration on these criticisms, see Steven G. Gey, The Case Against Postmodern Censorship Theory, 145 U. Pa. L. Rev. 193 (1996).

Similar problems can be found in Judith Butler's expansive interpretation of speech acts and performative utterances in her recent book on the subject. See Judith Butler, Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative (1997). In this book Butler criticizes the Supreme Court's opinion in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), for striking down a hate speech statute that had been applied to punish an individual who had burned a cross in a black family's yard. Butler accuses the Court of ignoring "the historical correlation between cross-burning and marking a community, a family, or an individual for further violence." Id. at 57. She concludes:

The relation between cross-burning and torchings of both persons and properties is historically established. Hence, from this perspective, the burning cross assumes the status of a direct address and a threat and, as such, is construed either as the incipient moment of injurious action or as the statement of an intention to injure.

Id. But by arguing that every example of a cross-burning "assumes the status of a direct address and a threat," Butler decontextualizes speech and robs the concept of the speech act or performative utterance of its value in identifying true threats. The value of this concept is its focus on the ways in which speech can sometimes operate as something other than an agent of communication: for example, when speech causes the creation of a contract, or when a verbal shout causes an immediate, visceral response that does not depend on any intellectual reaction to the content of the speech. Speech cannot be treated as indistinguishable from the action the speech describes without ignoring the intuitively obvious differences between the two phenomena. The First Amendment incorporates the recognition that James Baldwin can write incendiary prose about the fire next time without striking a match. See James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time (1963) (arguing that the country's failure to address racial problems will lead to a social conflagration).

[FN233]. See Cynthia L. Cates & Wayne V. McIntosh, Retail Jurisprudence: The Judge as Entrepreneur in the Marketplace of Ideas, 11 J.L. & Pol. 709, 749 (1995) (asserting that "[i]n the realm of so-called 'political speech,' the Court has adhered to Justice Brandeis' thought" in Brandenburg ever since the decision was handed down).

[FN234]. See C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech (1989); Kent Greenawalt, Speech, Crime and the Uses of Language (1989).

[FN235]. See generally Baker, supra note 234, at 54-69.

[FN236]. Id. at 56 (arguing that society must respect each individual's autonomy).

[FN237]. Id.

[FN238]. Id. (quoting Robert Nozick, Coercion, in Philosophy, Science, and Method 440, 459 (Sidney Morgenbesser et al. eds., 1969)).

[FN239]. Id. at 59-60.

[FN240]. Id. at 60.

[FN241]. Id.

[FN242]. Id.

[FN243]. Id. at 61-62.

[FN244]. See generally Greenawalt, supra note 234, at 43-71.

 

[FN245]. Id. at 43-44 (suggesting that assertions of fact and value are covered by the First Amendment because they fall within the justifications for freedom of speech).

[FN246]. Id. at 44.

[FN247]. Id. at 45.

[FN248]. Id. at 58.

[FN249]. Id. at 58-59.

[FN250]. Id. at 68.

[FN251]. Id. at 94.

[FN252]. Id. at 101.

[FN253]. Id. at 102.

[FN254]. See id. at 66-67, 94-95 (explaining that warning threats convey information that may be relevant to the recipient's future acts, while manipulative threats do not accurately disclose the speaker's intention and are therefore "situation-altering").

[FN255]. Id. at 97.

[FN256]. Baker, supra note 234, at 62.

[FN257]. Greenawalt, supra note 234, at 100.

[FN258]. Cf. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 592-99, 636-39 (1992) (providing the radically different perspectives contained in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion and Justice Scalia's dissent regarding whether a public school graduation prayer coerced the students involved in the ceremony).

[FN259]. The Nuremberg Files could be characterized as "manipulative" under Greenawalt's theory in the sense that the speech is intended to pressure the individuals targeted by the Files to conform their behavior to the principles espoused by the Files authors. Thus, according to Greenawalt's theory, the speech arguably "involves the creation of prospective harmful consequences in order to achieve one's objective" and should not be protected by the First Amendment. Greenawalt, supra note 234, at 94. Likewise, the Nuremberg Files could be characterized under Baker's theory as "coercive" in the sense that the implications of potentially harmful consequences for those listed in the Files if those individuals do not conform to the behavior advocated by the Files authors constitutes the use of force rather than persuasion to achieve the authors' desired goals. This would render the Nuremberg Files unprotected speech under Baker's proposed distinction between "coercive" and "persuasive" speech. See Baker, supra note 234, at 54-69.

[FN260]. See supra notes 16, 22, 65 and accompanying text.

[FN261]. See supra note 15.

[FN262]. For two other discussions of this phenomenon, see Steven G. Gey, This Is Not a Flag: The Aesthetics of Desecration, 1990 Wis. L. Rev. 1549, 1564-94 (arguing that regulation of flag desecration protest threatens intellectual freedom by allowing the state to control the manner of expressing and interpreting political ideas and symbols) and Steven G. Gey, The Apologetics of Suppression: The Regulation of Pornography As Act and Idea, 86 Mich. L. Rev. 1564, 1585-96 (1988) (attacking proposals to provide First Amendment protection only to "cognitive" elements of speech because such proposals involve subjective assessments of moral worth and simply repackage the definition of speech).

 

[FN263]. See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 16 (1971).

[FN264]. Id. at 26.

[FN265]. Id. (explaining that "words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force").

[FN266]. See Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 484 (1993) (stating that conduct, such as physical assault, can be regulated because it "is not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment").

[FN267]. See supra text accompanying note 63.

[FN268]. See supra text accompanying notes 50-57.

[FN269]. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 898-906 (1982).

[FN270]. Hentoff, supra note 10.

[FN271]. See supra text accompanying notes 37-40. Despite Brandenburg's applicability, as mentioned previously in this Article, subsequent lower federal court decisions have not followed Claiborne Hardware's example and thus have not looked to the Brandenburg test for guidance. See supra note 65.

[FN272]. See supra note 30 and accompanying text.

[FN273]. See Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 928 ("Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases."). The Supreme Court did not hedge on its recognition of the violent undertones of speech in these contexts: "In the passionate atmosphere in which the [Evers] speeches were delivered, they might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline, or, at least as intending to create a fear of violence whether or not improper discipline was specifically intended." Id. at 927. Nevertheless, the Court held that "[w]hen such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech." Id. at 928.

[FN274]. See Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 486-88 (1988) (holding that where street picketing is narrowly directed at the household and not the public, the state has a substantial and justifiable interest in banning it). The Frisby Court did emphasize that although the regulation it upheld affected the ability of the protestors at issue to express themselves, the ordinance was content neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. Moreover, the ordinance left open ample alternative channels of communication such as "marching ... go[ing] door-to-door to proselytize their views ... distribut[ing] literature in this manner ... or through the mails ... [or] contact[ing] residents by telephone ...." Id. at 484 (quoting Brief for Appellants); see also Rowan v. United States Post Office Dep't, 397 U.S. 728 (1970) (upholding a federal statute requiring commercial solicitors to remove names from mailing lists at the request of individual residential postal customers).

[FN275]. This principle has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court twice in recent cases involving disputes over the same abortion controversy that is the focal point of the Nuremberg Files litigation. See Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 773-74 (1994) (striking down an injunction provision prohibiting abortion protesters from approaching any person within a 300-foot zone around an abortion clinic unless "such person indicates a desire to communicate," because "it is difficult, indeed, to justify a prohibition on all uninvited approaches of persons seeking the services of the clinic, regardless of how peaceful the contact may be, without burdening more speech than necessary to prevent intimidation and to ensure access to the clinic" (emphasis in original)); Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357, 377 (1997) (striking down a floating buffer zone around individuals going to and from abortion clinics because "floating buffer zones prevent defendants--except for two sidewalk counselors, while they are tolerated by the targeted individual--from communicating a message from a normal conversational distance or handing leaflets to people entering or leaving the clinics who are walking on the public sidewalks").

[FN276]. See Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 256 (1952) (discussing "classes of speech" that are not protected, including "insulting or 'fighting' words ... which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace").

[FN277]. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 386 (1992) ("[T]he exclusion of 'fighting words' from the scope of the First Amendment simply means that, for purposes of that Amendment, the unprotected features of the words are, despite their verbal character, essentially a 'nonspeech' element of communication.").

[FN278]. See Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919).

[FN279]. See Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 523 (1972) (quoting Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 18 A.2d 754, 758 (1941)).

[FN280]. Schenck, 249 U.S. at 52.

[FN281]. The strongest articulation of this point in the incitement literature appears in Justice Brandeis's Whitney concurrence:

[N]o danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression.

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).

[FN282]. This is consistent with the analysis in another recent true threats case, United States v. Alkhabaz, 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997). This case, commonly referred to as Jake Baker, involved an interpretation of the federal threats statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 875(b)-(d) (1994) (imposing federal criminal sanctions on the transmission through the channels of interstate commerce of threats to kidnap or to injure another's person, property, or reputation). The court's discussion of this statute reflected its concern with the First Amendment limits on the concept of true threats. The court held that the statutory definition of "threat" requires that "a reasonable person (1) would take the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm (the mens rea), and (2) would perceive such expression as being communicated to effect some change or achieve some goal through intimidation (the actus reus)." Jake Baker, 104 F.3d at 1495. In Jake Baker, the appellate court affirmed the district court order quashing the indictment of the defendant, which had been based on a series of violent rape fantasies communicated via e-mail to an individual living in Canada. Id. at 1493. Because these violent fantasies were never communicated to anyone named in the stories, and therefore could not possibly have been intended to change, or have the effect of changing, the behavior of persons identified in the stories, the court held that the government failed to prove the e-mails involved true threats. Id. at 1496. The importance of the Jake Baker decision is its requirement that the government identify some act beyond the speech itself as the basis of a threats prosecution. Id. As in Brandenburg and the other political speech cases, the Jake Baker decision is premised on the notion that if a particular example of speech does not have an immediate consequence beyond the communication itself, the speech is presumptively protected by the First Amendment. Id.

[FN283]. See supra note 186.

[FN284]. See supra notes 185-87 and accompanying text.

[FN285]. See supra text accompanying notes 202-03.

[FN286]. See Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 916 (1978) (invalidating local ordinances intended to prohibit a neo-Nazi group from marching through a suburb of Chicago populated by Holocaust survivors). See generally Aryeh Neier, Defending My Enemy: American Nazis, the Skokie Case, and the Risks of Freedom (1979). The ACLU lost approximately 75,000 members and incurred $500,000 in debt as a result of its decision to defend the Nazis' right to march. See Samuel Walker, In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU 327-28 (1990).

[FN287]. See supra note 14.

[FN288]. In his Abrams dissent, Justice Holmes proclaimed that people should be "vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that [they] loathe and believe to be fraught with death." See Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

[FN289]. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 376 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).

END OF DOCUMENT

*END*END*END*END*END*END*

745135 - VARA,ROBERT J

Date and Time Printing Started: 10/17/00 10:51:17 am (Central)

Date and Time Printing Ended: 10/17/00 10:51:53 am (Central)

Offline Transmission Time: 00:00:36

Number of Requests in Group: 1

Number of Lines Charged: 2975

*END*END*END*END*END*END*